This morning, a link floated across the Atlassian del.icio.us feed, pointing to an interview with usability guru Bruce "Tog" Tognazzini entitled: "Does your web site drive viewers away?"
Clicking on the link, I found:
(For the full effect, I have a larger screen shot)
I'm not sure what I find funniest about Conservapedia.
Perhaps it's the claim that British spellings are a sign of liberal bias on Wikipedia. Or the fact that all the entries read like high-school book reports. Or that the original article for "United States of America" defined it as: "The United States of America, or just "America", is the country we live in." Or wacky stuff like redefining "faith" to mean "Christian faith", and then using that definition to prove that, Q.E.D., no other religion can be based on faith.
I'd like to think the whole thing is a troll, but there seems to be far too much work gone into the site just for the sake of a joke.
Maybe it's just further proof that, as Stephen Colbert said, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
(Tip of the hat to Danny Ayers)
It's time for the monthly Atlassian poker game. In a moment of inspiration, I sent this to our mailing-list.
On a related note, it happens to be February 2007.
The worst starting hand in Texas Hold-em.
In the spirit of The Hammer Challenge, I propose the following side-game tonight:
- Anyone who wants to play puts in $5
- The pool is divided into even prizes for every hour between 7pm and midnight
- Only one person can win per hour. If nobody wins, the prize jackpots.
- Unclaimed money gets divided evenly at the end of the night between whoever's left at the death.
To win a prize, you must win a hand while holding 72 off-suit. On winning the pot, you must show your cards, stand up, and proudly shout: "The Hammer!"
- The pot must be more than $5, or more than $10 after 10pm. Uncalled bets don't count as part of the pot.
- You can't win playing from either blind.
Of course, it's not like our Wednesday night games don't already feature a certain amount of reckless play with junk cards. I just felt it was my duty to take it to the next level.
Someone on my livejournal friends list recently asked, "are there actually people out there who enjoy their job?" I felt obliged to answer that I do. Like most people I'll probably complain about work after a few beers, but on the whole I enjoy what I do.
In thinking about this, I came up with the following "job satisfaction checklist". Think of the following questions on a scale from "Strongly disagree", "Disagree", "Neither Agree Nor Disagree", and so on.
- The work I do is both interesting and challenging
- I am capable of doing my assigned work well
- Whether I do a good job or not makes a material difference.
- My opinion and expertise are respected
- When I do good work, it is acknowledged by my employer and my peers
- My work environment allows me to do my job effectively
- I respect the people I work with professionally
- I like the people I work with
- I am being paid fairly
- The job offers me opportunities for advancement
The questions are highly subjective, obviously. Is writing a commercial wiki really making a 'material difference'? I like to think so. Someone who is busy trying to cure cancer might have a different opinion. (Unless they store their research data in Confluence, of course.)
Now answer the following, supplementary question. Which of the following statements do you agree with more strongly?
- Work is the sacrifice that we make so we can do the things (outside of work) that we enjoy, and that fulfil us.
- We spend a lot of time at work. If we're not doing something that we're passionate about, that gives us some kind of fulfilment, we're wasting a big part of our lives.
If you agree with the first, tally your results in the first test so that "Strongly Disagree" is -2 points, "Strongly Agree" is +2 points, and so on in between. If you identify more with the second, double each negative score.
People who see work as a necessary evil will accept neutral, or even slightly negative-scoring jobs. So long as working isn't actively grinding their souls into the dust, it's fine.
People who seek fulfilment in work are only going to be satisfied with a job that scores significantly positively. They may make one or two trade-offs -- for example a charity worker might accept low pay in exchange for the knowing they are making a difference -- but too many negatives will bring the whole thing crashing down.
These people are also the most likely to try to manipulate their score. For example, if you don't really feel your work makes a material difference one way or the other, why not deliberately make it more complicated, so it's at least interesting?