One of the most interesting things about the Palladio visualization of the network our course formed from the Golden Record is what it does not show. Indeed, I would argue that it is not really possible for a network, thought of simply as a network and considered using the ideas of network theory, to show the reasoning behind its own development.
To put it differently, the graph of this network, like most other network graphs, shows us the what but leaves aside the why. I say this despite the fact that people in the course had no incentive to choose particular pieces besides their own thoughts on what the best choice of music would be. That is, there was no need to, just for example, optimize for a search engine, try to join a larger community, or make sure that a particular set of choices was seen before another set.
Many of the networks we encounter elsewhere are effected by at least one of these factors and, if shown as a graph, such an impact could not be seen even where it exists. This is leaving aside such logistical matters as lack of digital or physical space. Even here, without looking at each justification for the choices, it is only possible to note which choices were made. Given the fairly small number of choosers, it may be possible to understand their choices to some extent, but even that would require stepping outside the data provided in the visualization. This brings to mind Abby Smith Rumsey’s discussion on what and how to digitize and the choices which are made in what people can afford to lose.
One of the most important of those choices, I would suggest, is one which is made before or during the choosing of the material itself, the choice of whether or not to explain and justify all the other decisions. This choice is most probably outside the graph made by the material which is being networked, but it is something which explains the graph, whether from a political perspective or any other. To understand the network as a whole, it may be useful to have a qualitative grouping of the justifications for each choice, rather than a grouping of the choices themselves. Visualizing such a qualitative grouping may be difficult, but it may be possible and would be useful in understanding how the network is developed. Similarly, it would be useful to have a justification for the exclusion of particular material from the network.
Again, grouping these might be somewhat difficult, and would require a degree of abstraction, but such a grouping would make it possible to understand the network at a deeper level, rather than just seeing it as it exists.
