I've long held the idea that there are two bellwethers of change for technological progress in society as a whole. They are: 1) the general population's ability to assimilate it into daily life (essentially meaning the learning curve shortens and the users get smarter) or 2) the UI becomes so second nature that 'learning' the technology is no longer necessary. These two variables are opposing pendulums. They swing back and forth; end-user technology will advance in leaps while the general public lags behind, then, the public will make leaps in knowledge and the technology functionality will lag behind. At some points in time, however they both meet on equally advancing cycles and create something amazing. This, I believe is what's happening right now to distributed, group edited and moderated information like Wikipedia.
Last night I had the rare opportunity to sit with my brother from Chicago and talk in-depth about both of our fields of study. He's a doctoral student in Religious Studies at the University of Chicago and I'm a technologist. We talked about this advancing concept of 'Community Wisdom' (I hereby make that an official term, by the way... : ) In my trade, the newest wins. Always. We don't seek to 'preserve the art' of engineering. Nothing remains stable long enough to be established as 'tradition' or legitimate in anyone's eyes. Technology thrives on capability and change... often capability for the sake of capability, many times forgetting the greater need of technology; advancement of the end-user. His trade, however, is much different. Things are done, not because they're the most efficient way, but because they're the traditional way. He spoke of the access he now had to libraries of information that a decade ago, only an Ivy League professor could afford to explore. These tools could effectively make him as informed and capable as any professor on Earth, however, there is a major drawback. These sources; like Wikipedia, blogs, independent research, forums, etc. aren't considered 'legitimate' by the academic community. One must study the dusty volumes stored in catacombs in Rome to truly understand and gather the information or the perceived 'truth' of the topic. This inability, unwillingness or fear of change creates an interesting dynamic: As technologists, we're producing technology that most end-users aren't willing or capable of utilizing yet, however, in the educational field, the end-user is demanding technological capability that can't be provided.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
By applying the true concept of Community Wisdom, we start to see that the whole is much, much greater than the sum of the parts. The problem with community models, open source projects, etc. is that they've always been pioneered by the tech community that created them. To truly propagate advancement and legitimacy in Community Wisdom we must combine forces like superheroes and each provide a piece of the puzzle. By allowing information to flow freely through this model, we create a new truth. A truth not dictated by the top tier of academia or business or those lucky enough to have been published, but truly by the community, the end-user and consumer of the information. It is then that we have truly built a living, breathing community information store with unbridled capability.
This may seem like a far-fetched science fiction diatribe, but in all reality, we're not that far off. I've worked with different technology companies throughout my career and some of them are truly pushing the envelope. Developing applications that model data and data relationships with a 3D viewer, thus allowing the end-user to view the data relationship without any prior knowledge of training (remember those two bellwether changes)? This type of advancing user interface draws more people in, meanwhile our storehouse of available data on every topic in society continues to grow at an astounding rate and soon, those pendulums will meet. This time, its going to be incredible...
How "Community Wisdom" Will Change Everything About Your Life
About this entry
Youre currently reading How "Community Wisdom" Will Change Everything About Your Life.
- Published:
- on Aug 1, 2007
- Previous:
- Older Post
- Next:
- Newer Post
-
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 11:59:00 AM CDT
Tanner: This is a great post, and I think you're headed generally in the right direction with the points you make. However, I'm going to quibble with one distinction you make:
[Your brother] spoke of the access he now had to libraries of information that a decade ago, only an Ivy League professor could afford to explore. These tools could effectively make him as informed and capable as any professor on Earth, however, there is a major drawback. These sources; like Wikipedia, blogs, independent research, forums, etc. aren't considered 'legitimate' by the academic community. One must study the dusty volumes stored in catacombs in Rome to truly understand and gather the information or the perceived 'truth' of the topic.
As a former PhD candidate, and as someone married to a PhD, I've had some experience with this. The sources you cite - Wikipedia, blogs, independent research, forums - are not considered "legitimate" research sources because in all cases (except maybe "independent research," whatever that means) they are mostly unsubstantiated sources. You've read enough blogs and forums to know that they are very often filled with the writers' opinions, with no original source to back them up.
And Wikipedia is not exactly a stable source of information - too many of those entries are not accurate. This is directly because of the "community wisdom" method that Wikipedia uses to build their database/encyclopedia. Many times an expert - someone who knows about the subject - will write and/or contribute to the entry, but quite often people who know just a little will contribute as well. As a former academician who knows how Wikipedia is put together, I would not use it as a source for anything, and would question any colleague who did.
In academic research, the source text trumps all - those "dusty volumes" you speak of. By going to the source text, you experience first-hand what the original writer was saying.
Anyway, this detracts nothing from your primary point, which is extremely interesting.
BTW - great blog! I added it to my feed reader about 3 weeks ago. -
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 12:12:00 PM CDT
Tracy, great to hear your comments, and I believe your credibility rings very true. Structure like Wikipedia are loose and often-times difficult to cite if at all, but this is the opportunity that exists in Community Wisdom.
If academia can provide their meritous work and achievement to the vehicle that Wikipedia/Google/Blogs have created and establish a legitimate source, the implications are exponential!
I don't think the process will be easy or will it be universally accepted, but you, by leaving your comment have immediately offered another perspective which, with time, may be supported or contrasted. This model allows us to boil down, possibly not to an accepted 'truth' such as can be provided by original text, but a social element of knowledge.
Thanks so much for the compliments! All the best!
tanner -
Monday, August 20, 2007 1:34:00 PM CDT
Tanner,
As always, I dig your ideas. Reading this blog made me remember reading Tulsa's Urban magazine "Urban Tulsa" over the weekend. In it was an interesting article about the raising cost of traditional academia (arts and sciences) and how students feel they aren't getting their money's worth of a good, vocation-ready education. And this of course, ties directly into how universities all over are becoming more and more disconnected to technology. The article is here: http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A15308
it's very interesting to me that traditional academia has been dragging its feet into the digital age. And I can definitely relate. Having a Literature degree myself, and being drafted into the parents' business right out of college, for the first few years in the private world, I carried a general malaise of technology and a skepticism of any type of knowledge that wasn't first passed through its "peers" for review.
The skepticism in these departments to shared knowledge, as I call it, is as much about their distrust for technology as a vehicle as it is about it passing a "peer review". There is, to be sure, a sense in many Arts and Science departments around the globe, of keeping high learning as a separate sphere from street knowledge. And I think Tracy points out something valid--that institutional research keeps a greater accurate record of original texts, etc.)
Beyond technology as a vehicle:
If we had time, we could sit over fire and some good pipe tobacco and talk about the difference between getting a higher education verses something else. and we could discuss how technology plays into all of this. And somewhere during the night, we could fire up more tobacco and talk about how Truth with a capital T has, over centuries, gradually been reduced to a relative truth with a lowercase t. And we could point out the university’s role in that propaganda that has eventually reached even the blue collar working man. Now that God is dead, or the idea of God as alive and present, is no longer a question, we no longer have a standard for Truth…and no longer really have a metaphysical need for the university for attaining high knowledge (let’s not forget the first institutions were governed by the church).
I don’t want to go on a rant here, but once society gave up the struggle for a unified system of knowledge, then it became just a matter of time before the university would lose metaphysical credibility. Sure today, there is some lingering sense that a college experience will instruct the whole body, soul and mind…but those are mere taglines correct? What is considered relevant reading material to some may be used as toilet paper for others.
We could also point out the rise and fall of art in our western culture And chances are, no matter what angle we chose to study our culture, every situation will come back to the breakdown of traditional knowledge and the breakdown of Truth as a capital T. (from the 18th century on).
What I'm saying is that this phenomenon you're expressing has its roots deep within the struggle for knowledge and meaning, and that these roots have been slowly changing. It began with the idea that truth is relative. And once that became the standard, excepted world-view, we see the university having a hard time finding purpose in our culture. Nowadays, it might be an interesting argument to make that one could get about as good of an education (maybe less credible in some circles) from $.65 worth of late charges at the local bookstore as he could have gotten 10 years ago from the most prestigious university. Or better yet, forget the bookstore…that’s what google is all about.
Of course, you can be 10 years old and post a blog about the French revolution and get every date and fact wrong...but you can also be 80 years old and post a blog about your life that would otherwise never enter the sphere of "good literature" in any institution.
likewise, technology sharing doesn't need to pass through any ancient standard of truth. It is the first, in my mind, curriculum that the university hasn't figured out how to monopolize.
It’s an interesting discussion. And I’m not sure which side of the fence I’m on to be honest with you. I’m a traditionalist, a purist, wrapped up in technology.
That's just my two cents:
Sean Roberts -
Monday, August 20, 2007 4:46:00 PM CDT
One more thing...one has to wonder if over time vocation education will eventually catch up to traditional, collegiate education--as it readily accepts technology as it applies in the workforce, across time, people & materials, and all educational backgrounds.
In Tulsa, the brightest computer and graphic design students go to a vocational school just 15 minutes north of town. Once they graduate, they can make on average $20,000 more a year than someone who graduates from the University of Oklahoma with an Arts and Science degree(which brags of having the state's highest Freshman Arts and Science average GPA).
Fascinating. Ok, I'm done with my rant.
4 comments: