Truth About Wikipedia – YouTube Video. This documentary from VPROInternational explores Wikipedia and in doing so some core concepts of the participatory web.
Knowledge@Wharton offers an interesting analysis of what appears to be a competition between experts and amateurs as information providers. The piece notes many of the sources I have cited in previous posts (e.g. Revenge of the Experts, Cult of the Amateur).
The analysis notes that despite recent criticism of user generated content money is still moving toward sites that cultivate the generation of user content (e.g., News Corp purchase of MySpace). The Wharton analysis offers comments from business professionals reaching a variety of conclusions. Among the comments, the recognition that the desired for vetted information is one motivation and the desire to express one’s opinion is another (my interpretation).
Some conclusions:
Ultimately, the tug of war between professional and user-generated content will be resolved by their business models.
…
The problem: It’s unclear whether consumers will pay for content — no matter how good it is.
“The big challenge is the economic problem. What funded the traditional content model is falling apart,” says Whitehouse. “Ideally, I see Internet content being a blend of professional and amateur content, but how do we develop an economic model that supports both?” (Kendall Whitehouse, senior director of IT at Wharton)
I wrote about the return of expertise a couple of days ago and today I encounter a new search engine roughly based on “human” expertise. Topicle is a new search site that allows participants to create their own search engines. You can search using existing search topics or create your own. There was not topic on “education blogs“, so I created my own. I simply copied a few URLs from my bloglines account to get it started. I admit this was not very original, but it would seem a search tool should cover some of the basics before moving on to specialized topics.
Topicle is supposed to function as a social search service. Participants identify topics, add URLs, and rate existing URLs. We will have to see if my little seed grows.
Newsweek (Revenge of the Experts) offers a recent article contending that entrepreneurs are funding web ventures that offer a role for expertise. The logic appears to be that ad revenue drives web development and ads associated with an expert perspective are likely to be worth more because such sites will attract more attention. For example, Mahalo organizes resources that have been evaluated before inclusion. Mahalo reminds me of the original Directory sites that first offered a way to locate web resources.
I have to make one more comment about this book and then I will give it up.
I have been listening to Friedman’s “The World is Flat” (again) for the past few days. Today, the topic happened to be open source software. In attempting to provide both pros and cons, Friedman describes a discussion with a Microsoft executive. In attempting to argue that open source development can be detrimental to the industry, the executive suggested that open source developers recreate what already exists, but do not put time into research and development required to move the industry forward. This argument also is advanced in the “Cult of the Amateur” .
When I read, I am immediately taken in by the author’s arguments. When I read multiple books on similar topics, I can feel like I am being bounced about like a ping pong ball. Most often, this is because competing positions end up focused on different strengths and weaknesses. It is not about being right or wrong. So, open source (amateur programmers, authors, etc.) projects tend to recycle work already done and in the process take revenue away from the individuals and companies generating the original products. When money gets tight, R&D is one of the first things to go.
First, do I believe this position is true. Do bloggers mostly comment about the work of commercial sources? I suppose – I am commenting about the work of two book authors. Of course, I would guess my comments would increase rather than decrease someone else’s willingness to buy these books. I have hardly provided enough information to replace a reading of the original sources. I suppose Open Office is a reworking and for some a replacement of Word. Is Linux a reworking of Windows? Apache may be the best example ending up as a replacement for several commercial server packages.
I think there are examples that work in the opposite direction. Mosaic (and then Netscape) were imitated by Microsoft in creating IE.
Are companies interested in innovation? I think companies are interested in innovation to the extent that innovation provides a competitive advantage. What bothers me more and more is that there seems to be less and less competition and fewer and fewer “players”. There are fewer textbook companies, companies developing computer operating systems, independent newspapers, major Internet destinations, etc. Companies drive out or assimilate the competition. It is difficult to accept that this is for the benefit of the consumer. Open source developers offer one source of competition.
If the options are open source approaches reducing revenue for developers and a limited number of dominant corporations minimizing competition and controlling the market, I think I come down on the side of open source.
One final point. I don’t see big companies as the only source of innovation. Researchers (and students) in colleges and universities contribute in a cost effective fashion to innovation. Mosaic and Google search came out of higher education and not corporate culture. University-based researchers have a different set of incentives than industry-supported researchers (when these organizations maintain independence) and this is a productive hedge for society.
Aha – I finally found a post related to Keen’s book – Weblogg-Ed – read some of the comments.
Blogged with Flock
A few days ago, after reading the first half of Andrew Keen’s “The Cult of the Amateur” I wrote a post predicting that some of the high profile educational bloggers pushing web 2.0 applications would acknowledge this book and offer a refutation. So far my prediction has failed to materialize.
I do hope this book receives attention within the educational technology community. I am not endorsing all of the ideas, nor do I regard this as a scholarly treatment of the subject, but I do think many of the ideas expressed in this book need to be openly stated so that the issues can be debated.
The core themes of this book are interrelated. One of the core themes laments the decline in financial incentives assuring quality information and entertainment sources. A second core theme concerns the nature of expertise, and our appreciation of expertise and what it takes to develop and sustain expert sources. A third theme concerns the shoddy practices of those involved in the participatory web. Factors related to these themes include:
Factor 1 – redirection of revenue sources funding the production of quality resources. For example, options for online ads (free alternatives to classified ads and other ways of offering ads from companies to consumers) have taken away a fundamental source of revenue.
Factor 2 – tolerance for secondary source and amateur opinion in place of original work and expert opinion.
Factor 3 – acceptance of outright theft of the intellectual proporty of others.
Why any of this matters?
In the long run, we have access to information and cultural works of poor quality because there is little incentive to offer quality resources
We accept plagiarism and theft as acceptable behaviors.
We accept the opinions of those we agree with rather than challenge ourselves to process thoughtful analysis offered by objective experts.
What is the relevance to education?
Education is highly dependent on quality resources.
Education plays a pivotal role in developing values and responsible behavior.
Education plays an important role in developing information literacy.
Educators may use many of the resources and experiences Keen argues may be problematic.
Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture. Doubleday: New York.
technorati tags:copyright
Blogged with Flock
Holding public officials accountable (e.g., Dan Rather) has been touted as one of accomplishments of bloggers. I was listening to public radio this morning and heard an interview with one of the core group from factcheck.org. This individual discussed “spin” and our tendency to be taken in. The example I remember concerned a famous Republican ad in the Bush-Kerry presidential election. You probably remember the ad – it contained a pack of running wolves and a statement that after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Kerry had voted to decrease funding for the intelligence community. What the ad failed to make clear was that the “attack” was the bombing in the 1980s and Kerry had voted on several occasions to increase funding since. So, the information, but not the intended message was truthful. The emotional component (the wolves) and personal beliefs tend to lead to the “interpretation” intended by those sponsoring the ad.
FactCheck focuses on political issues and is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. I see they also have a book – “unSpun”.
FactCheckEd (a division I assume) offers educational resources for secondary school.