This post from the archives of the Philosophistry blog talks about Wikipedia, and how our use of it has redefined the value of information. The author, P, suggests that it is no longer important to know information, but rather to know where it is and how to access it when needed. I strongly recommend reading his post, it's well written.
P resolves the Wikipedia / Google debate in his blog post. Here's a snippet:
"In the grand scheme of things, searching for information on Wikipedia is a categorically different user experience than Googling. Googling is more like foraging, Wikipedia is more like recall. This has a lot to do with the consistency of the information on Wikipedia, which is similar to the consistency of an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia, when you look up a famous historical figure, you know what kind of information you're going to get. Same with Wikipedia. Googling, on the other hand, is still extremely inconsistent. Google searches the entire Web, which has no rules. On Wikipedia, poorly written content gets marked with "this needs a cleanup." Eventually, most of the content becomes Wikipedian. Web content, on the other hand, doesn't become more Googly."
While I had been reading P's blog for a good six months at the time, when he posted this entry in August 2006, it inspired me to comment for the first time. I said something along the lines of:
"I agree with your thoughts on this. I would like to add that google, as it includes everything on the web, is (almost by definition) a unique combination of info and advertising, like flipping through a magazine, whereas wiki is meant to be, like you said, an encyclopedia. The point that I feel needs to be driven home is that wiki is not written or published by an authority on the subject, but is a collection of the collective of those who know wiki and are willing to write. The knowledge at your fingertips, the medium defining the knowledge at your fingertips, is biased by being a medium chosen by some and ignored by others. The fact that anyone can come and write and claim their truths, and that over time, others can edit and refine and redefine the truth, makes wiki a modern day BBS [Bulletin Board System]. This phenomenon of information definition, in combination with information availability, is the new wonder-bread."
With reference to the Collective Intelligence diagram above, Wiki is enabling users to share documents (information), technology, and people. It is shared by those who value it similarly. And it defines the users' reliance on their ability to find information there (they know they can when they need to). Wiki makes knowing new stuff easier in ways that haven't been possible before.
3 comments:
I'm reading an interesting book called The Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen. It's one of the few books I've seen that stands against user-generated content, and so I had to pick it up. Not so much because I'm against it but b/c it is a lonely voice. Anyways, it makes a lot of interesting points so far -- I'll update when finished.
Wow, I don't come across that perspective very often: "against user-generated content". I'm interested to know more about how that arguement is made and where it goes. /rd
I've been reading a few books recently on information. I need some time to digest my findings.
Recent reads:
Ambient Findability (Peter Morville)
Everything Is Miscellaneous (David Weinberger)
On the shelf:
Glut: Mastering Information Through the Ages (Alex Wright)
Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (Cass R. Sunstein)
I'll take a look at Andrew Keen's book as well. /k
Post a Comment