I think the problem might get worse in the future.
I concur and think the same. But IMHO the problem isn't so much that we increasingly might face posts akin to homework, without the home prefix - these are easy to spot. More so it is the fact that these - as I would call them - micro jobs exist in the first place, and why they are increasing. This opens a vast area of discussion which traditionally doesn't take place on PerlMonks, and if so, only sporadically: politics, economics; and what we really are doing as IT professionals, to what end, for whom, and why; in what kind of world we want to live, and what we are doing to foster the realization of our ideals.
There are the eagle programmers among us, highly skilled people who soare above and discern a good job from afar; and then those, that have to fight for each crumb in the chicken yard.
The IT environment is a machinery of vast proportions (anyone reminded of Eisenhower?), too big for anyone single person to overlook. And somewhere something is broke, it needs just a particular screw, a washer and a nut to fix. So the job is dealt out, the first one (or name other terms) to come up with that thing gets paid. That sort of crumbs, in the chicken yard.
I know of many parts of that machinery, and how to make them. Am I to share?
We have an aversion against doing someone else's homework, because doing so bereaves the solicitor the opportunity to learn, and because it is perceived as unethical if somebody adorns himself with borrowed plumes. Good.
But the crumbs? The tiny achievements somebody needs to fulfill to earn his living? What do the eagles say? Their habitat is shrinking. Why?
perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'
| [reply] |
Nothing can be done about the micro job market. It's like Uber versus established cab companies.
If you (meaning anybody) are one of the chickens, and you want to avoid working for free for somebody who is getting paid, give help, not answers.
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 (NASB)
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
"Mini job"-ness and task forwarding are not really the right criteria for evaluating content suitability. We humans are a curious bunch. Voluntarily solve sudoku or crosswords. But then, complain when the solution is of actual use to somebody... There are monks in this monastery who gleefully accept any mini-challenge to cook up another obscure regex. And it's okay.
The right criteria are (dis)honesty and (ab)use. Often, the only missing piece is attribution to source, or, statement about intended application. These might be interesting and worthy problems still. So basically, the usual academic integrity rules.
| [reply] |
