Comments on: When the wheels come off: on information, experts, and the limits of the crowdsourced hype brigade http://blogs.ubc.ca/brian/2008/10/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/ social learning, open education, and petty battles with rivals over power and money... Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:24:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brian http://blogs.ubc.ca/brian/2008/10/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-2061 Brian Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:43:01 +0000 http://migrator.rab.olt.ubc.ca/brian2/2008/10/07/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/#comment-2061 @D'Arcy - "interactive, but passive" is a dynamic worth thinking about more. @Rob - interesting you mention the role of "local"... the broader context Postman discusses here is that the attention paid to remote concerns drew away people's engagement with the issues in front of them. Oddly enough, I've really come to value online interactions with people closer to me: people who blog about East Vancouver, or the Twitter feed from my office mates. @Laura - that's an awesome comment. The Tsunami was the case I was thinking of in which Wikipedia seemed to outperform the media in terms of collecting and assessing solid information... and from what I read that work actually assisted rescue efforts. I'm less convinced that the efforts to raise funds were significantly enhanced by moving online - I can recall lots of impressive and large scale fundraising that has happened pre-digital. I also thought the post-Katrina landscape was quintessentially about live television more than blogs (I remember the Flickr feed from NO was quiet in the week following the hurricane). You may well be right on that, and I wrong... I absolutely agree that the distinction between knowing and doing is key. @Mike - Ditto on knowing/doing... and your thoughts on breaking the grip of centralized mass media were also percolating in my head as I wrote that post even though I didn't address them... thanks for raising it. I will say though, that this phenomenon of some modern-day bloggers thinking they always need to have something on the Big Story of the day, regardless of their actual knowledge, creates a media fog every bit as distorting as letting the nightly news set the agenda for us. @Lesley - a hole in the head is as good as two... umm, what were you saying? @D’Arcy – “interactive, but passive” is a dynamic worth thinking about more.

@Rob – interesting you mention the role of “local”… the broader context Postman discusses here is that the attention paid to remote concerns drew away people’s engagement with the issues in front of them. Oddly enough, I’ve really come to value online interactions with people closer to me: people who blog about East Vancouver, or the Twitter feed from my office mates.

@Laura – that’s an awesome comment. The Tsunami was the case I was thinking of in which Wikipedia seemed to outperform the media in terms of collecting and assessing solid information… and from what I read that work actually assisted rescue efforts. I’m less convinced that the efforts to raise funds were significantly enhanced by moving online – I can recall lots of impressive and large scale fundraising that has happened pre-digital. I also thought the post-Katrina landscape was quintessentially about live television more than blogs (I remember the Flickr feed from NO was quiet in the week following the hurricane). You may well be right on that, and I wrong… I absolutely agree that the distinction between knowing and doing is key.

@Mike – Ditto on knowing/doing… and your thoughts on breaking the grip of centralized mass media were also percolating in my head as I wrote that post even though I didn’t address them… thanks for raising it. I will say though, that this phenomenon of some modern-day bloggers thinking they always need to have something on the Big Story of the day, regardless of their actual knowledge, creates a media fog every bit as distorting as letting the nightly news set the agenda for us.

@Lesley – a hole in the head is as good as two… umm, what were you saying?

]]> By: lesley http://blogs.ubc.ca/brian/2008/10/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-2062 lesley Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:24:13 +0000 http://migrator.rab.olt.ubc.ca/brian2/2008/10/07/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/#comment-2062 The goodness of these posts could only be possible with increased brain blood volumn. I think someone finally got the Trepanation they've been waiting for..... The goodness of these posts could only be possible with increased brain blood volumn. I think someone finally got the Trepanation they’ve been waiting for…..

]]> By: Mike Caulfield http://blogs.ubc.ca/brian/2008/10/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-2063 Mike Caulfield Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:59:21 +0000 http://migrator.rab.olt.ubc.ca/brian2/2008/10/07/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/#comment-2063 I think Laura's point is right on. If you take the Postman point there are two sides to it (at least as I read it quickly). Postman calls out the fact that telegraphy put information in your hands about things which you cannot affect. One way to look at that is information glut, and I think we'd be fools to not all agree that it's a problem that we will forever deal with. But another way to look at it is our ability to know about things that are remote has far outstripped our ability to *do* things about situations that are remote, and a healthy reaction to that problem could be the development of more power to affect these remote things -- things like trillion dollar bailouts, and wars fought on lies. I think to the extent we spin out wheels (Scoble earthquake excepted) it's not because these things are remote, but because our intersection with them does not match the real importance they have. I agree with you about the Scoble experiment, and about much of that 5 minutes sooner school of journalism. But there's a way that that is doing something as well -- by undermining the authority of the press on the stupid terms they treasure we put another crack in their hegemony. And when we dispose of Mass Media, I think we're going to find that we are a lot less remote from changing things than we have been told. (and if i'm only focussing on a small piece of your post here it is because I could literally write about this issue all day... and I need to work...) I think Laura’s point is right on. If you take the Postman point there are two sides to it (at least as I read it quickly). Postman calls out the fact that telegraphy put information in your hands about things which you cannot affect. One way to look at that is information glut, and I think we’d be fools to not all agree that it’s a problem that we will forever deal with.

But another way to look at it is our ability to know about things that are remote has far outstripped our ability to *do* things about situations that are remote, and a healthy reaction to that problem could be the development of more power to affect these remote things — things like trillion dollar bailouts, and wars fought on lies.

I think to the extent we spin out wheels (Scoble earthquake excepted) it’s not because these things are remote, but because our intersection with them does not match the real importance they have.

I agree with you about the Scoble experiment, and about much of that 5 minutes sooner school of journalism. But there’s a way that that is doing something as well — by undermining the authority of the press on the stupid terms they treasure we put another crack in their hegemony. And when we dispose of Mass Media, I think we’re going to find that we are a lot less remote from changing things than we have been told.

(and if i’m only focussing on a small piece of your post here it is because I could literally write about this issue all day… and I need to work…)

]]> By: Laura http://blogs.ubc.ca/brian/2008/10/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-2064 Laura Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:55:04 +0000 http://migrator.rab.olt.ubc.ca/brian2/2008/10/07/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/#comment-2064 I would use the Tsunami of 2006 (?) as an example that spread via the web and that prompted some kind of action. If not for Flickr and to a lesser extent, blogs, that incident would never have made the news cycle except as a ticker item scrolling across the screen. But since there was such a rich collection of photos and accounts, it became a major story, prompting hundreds of people to send aid. And Katrina? Maybe that story was kept alive because of blogs. I think some new media effects are more like water dripping on a rock, eating away at the old structures that dictated what we need to know and when. The problem is, new media can become just like the 24-hour news cycle if we let it. But, I think it has potential not to. What Jennifer Jones wrote about the other day and what Surowecki says in Wisdom of Crowds is key--diversity. I happen to have an economist in my Twitter feed. I have a few people I disagree with. I was also able to go to Wikipedia to find out what a credit default swap was and what commercial paper was. I couldn't have done that 10 years ago. Look, Scoble could have done a lot of things with his information about the earthquake. He could have started a fundraiser. He could have organized a relief trip. He could have contacted the Red Cross. He chose not to do anything. Doing is hard. It requires effort and I think we shouldn't blame the information flow for our decision not to act on the information we have. To me, new media makes our information less abstract. As you say, it takes away the filter. That's an important first step to action imo. Now it's not images flickering across the tv screen. It's a person writing about escaping their flooded house or the bombed out house or the earthquake. It's a Wall Street banker talking about what *really* happened. I think we can't assume that interaction leads to action and we have to be vigilant against complacency. So maybe we should start acting on information ourselves and see what happens. I would use the Tsunami of 2006 (?) as an example that spread via the web and that prompted some kind of action. If not for Flickr and to a lesser extent, blogs, that incident would never have made the news cycle except as a ticker item scrolling across the screen. But since there was such a rich collection of photos and accounts, it became a major story, prompting hundreds of people to send aid.

And Katrina? Maybe that story was kept alive because of blogs.

I think some new media effects are more like water dripping on a rock, eating away at the old structures that dictated what we need to know and when.

The problem is, new media can become just like the 24-hour news cycle if we let it. But, I think it has potential not to. What Jennifer Jones wrote about the other day and what Surowecki says in Wisdom of Crowds is key–diversity. I happen to have an economist in my Twitter feed. I have a few people I disagree with. I was also able to go to Wikipedia to find out what a credit default swap was and what commercial paper was. I couldn’t have done that 10 years ago.

Look, Scoble could have done a lot of things with his information about the earthquake. He could have started a fundraiser. He could have organized a relief trip. He could have contacted the Red Cross. He chose not to do anything.

Doing is hard. It requires effort and I think we shouldn’t blame the information flow for our decision not to act on the information we have. To me, new media makes our information less abstract. As you say, it takes away the filter. That’s an important first step to action imo. Now it’s not images flickering across the tv screen. It’s a person writing about escaping their flooded house or the bombed out house or the earthquake. It’s a Wall Street banker talking about what *really* happened. I think we can’t assume that interaction leads to action and we have to be vigilant against complacency. So maybe we should start acting on information ourselves and see what happens.

]]> By: Rob Wall http://blogs.ubc.ca/brian/2008/10/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-2065 Rob Wall Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:44:58 +0000 http://migrator.rab.olt.ubc.ca/brian2/2008/10/07/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/#comment-2065 Dude! You've got two killer posts in the same day, one of which refers to Postman's best writing ever, and Alan's making allusions to nucleotides while talking about the unbearable lightness of web-being. I'm joining Jim in heaven (maybe we can meet up for a beer). You've nailed the paradox of modern life, and what seems to slowly eat away at our soul - we know more about what we can't change and at the same time, we know less about what we have the power to change. How much local news is on TV compared to 10 years ago? If your primary news source is the web, how much local news is available? Scoble's experiment and failure reveal a lot about our assumptions for online participatory networks like twitter. We talk a lot about the wisdom of crowds, and Wikipedia is a great example of what can happen when that wisdom is harnessed. But what about the stupidity of crowds? I'd rather talk to an economist about the imploding American financial system than take a twitter-poll (sorry twitter-buds - even you have your limits of knowledge). Expertise also has its place as a source of knowledge, but we in North America generally seem to be mistrustful of experts and academics. Dude! You’ve got two killer posts in the same day, one of which refers to Postman’s best writing ever, and Alan’s making allusions to nucleotides while talking about the unbearable lightness of web-being. I’m joining Jim in heaven (maybe we can meet up for a beer).

You’ve nailed the paradox of modern life, and what seems to slowly eat away at our soul – we know more about what we can’t change and at the same time, we know less about what we have the power to change. How much local news is on TV compared to 10 years ago? If your primary news source is the web, how much local news is available?

Scoble’s experiment and failure reveal a lot about our assumptions for online participatory networks like twitter. We talk a lot about the wisdom of crowds, and Wikipedia is a great example of what can happen when that wisdom is harnessed. But what about the stupidity of crowds? I’d rather talk to an economist about the imploding American financial system than take a twitter-poll (sorry twitter-buds – even you have your limits of knowledge). Expertise also has its place as a source of knowledge, but we in North America generally seem to be mistrustful of experts and academics.

]]> By: Jim http://blogs.ubc.ca/brian/2008/10/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-2067 Jim Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:05:24 +0000 http://migrator.rab.olt.ubc.ca/brian2/2008/10/07/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/#comment-2067 Holy shit, I think you just beat up Scoble! I love it! More seriously, amazing stuff here, and a necessary anodyne to the over inflation of this technology as it relates to issues that mediation often fosters rather than helps to solve. The Abject, two gems in a row in a day? I'm in heaven! Holy shit,

I think you just beat up Scoble! I love it!
More seriously, amazing stuff here, and a necessary anodyne to the over inflation of this technology as it relates to issues that mediation often fosters rather than helps to solve.

The Abject, two gems in a row in a day? I’m in heaven!

]]> By: David Wiley http://blogs.ubc.ca/brian/2008/10/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-2066 David Wiley Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:05:29 +0000 http://migrator.rab.olt.ubc.ca/brian2/2008/10/07/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/#comment-2066 Demonstrable expertise does count for something, the question is, how do you demonstrate it? Also, just FYI: http://dentaldude.blogspot.com/ http://thedigitaldentist.blogspot.com/ =) Demonstrable expertise does count for something, the question is, how do you demonstrate it?

Also, just FYI:

http://dentaldude.blogspot.com/
http://thedigitaldentist.blogspot.com/

=)

]]> By: D'Arcy Norman http://blogs.ubc.ca/brian/2008/10/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-2068 D'Arcy Norman Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:13:02 +0000 http://migrator.rab.olt.ubc.ca/brian2/2008/10/07/when-the-wheels-come-off-on-information-experts-and-the-limits-of-the-crowdsourced-hype-brigade/#comment-2068 but it's not just web 2.0 that pushes info for info's sake. 90% of the local tv newscast is useless info. "someone got murdered. some car accident..." sad, sure, but not info that I can _do_ anything with, except maybe be afraid... or tune in for updates, to watch the ads... our role has devolved from being active participants in a community, to relentless absorbers of data. it's a one way journey, where news goes to die. it's interactive (participatory?) but passive. it's largely irrelevant and unimportant that we are so connected to constant flows of news updates. it seems like we're set up to get info. to think about it. to share it. but to _do_ nothing with it. So scoble heard about the earthquake. what did that do? what does it mean, when we're satisfied to be receivers of instant updates, but do nothing to act? this artificial urgency, this constant stream of irrelevant updates, desensitizes us to the news that really matters. anna nicole smith got 24 hour coverage, but darfur got next to none (in traditional media, and participatory web 2.0 culture as well). but it’s not just web 2.0 that pushes info for info’s sake. 90% of the local tv newscast is useless info.

“someone got murdered. some car accident…”

sad, sure, but not info that I can _do_ anything with, except maybe be afraid… or tune in for updates, to watch the ads…

our role has devolved from being active participants in a community, to relentless absorbers of data. it’s a one way journey, where news goes to die.

it’s interactive (participatory?) but passive.

it’s largely irrelevant and unimportant that we are so connected to constant flows of news updates.

it seems like we’re set up to get info. to think about it. to share it.

but to _do_ nothing with it.

So scoble heard about the earthquake. what did that do? what does it mean, when we’re satisfied to be receivers of instant updates, but do nothing to act?

this artificial urgency, this constant stream of irrelevant updates, desensitizes us to the news that really matters. anna nicole smith got 24 hour coverage, but darfur got next to none (in traditional media, and participatory web 2.0 culture as well).

]]>