Clay Shirky’s perspective on the evolving landscape of communication technology approaches the phenomena of the Internet explosion in the past few decades from an angle I had never considered. His definitions revolve around a notion of the “professional”; traditionally, these people were empowered by their specialized training, making it necessary for nonprofessionals to interact with them—in this way they served as “gatekeepers” to their industries. Shirky especially focuses on the publisher, a profession which is becoming increasingly marginalized because they no longer possess all the means of production. He states that “an individual with a camera or a keyboard is now a non-profit of one,” and this ability for the layperson to self-publish circumvents the professionals which previously controlled the flow of information (77). This concept is compelling because it illustrates the extreme importance of professionals throughout history: since the invention of writing they have owned and understood the technology of communication. The Internet revolution has changed this dynamic in an extremely short period of time—what are the implications? I find myself fascinated by the potential of a globally connected society to solve problems without their ideas being mediated through professionals whose interests are often suspect.
To this end designers must work towards implementing the RIBS heuristic to maintain large-scale, productive communities and networks to reveal the aforementioned potential. Wikipedia is an ideal example and the reason that I am optimistic about the future of productive thought communities: it seems to defy the common understanding of how people work together. I remember being in high school as Wikipedia was gaining popular prominence; the faculty took a collective stance against the website, declaring it an unreliable source. Part of this response may be related to the “self-defense” aspect Shirky claims is part of being a professional (67)—they perceive Wikipedia as threatening their authority as givers (perhaps guardians) of knowledge. They argued that Wikipedia’s openly editable content was less accurate than other sources, alluding to famous instances of vandalism and malpractice, and insisted that we not cite its articles in our work. This type of understanding of Wikipedia seems not uncommon—people just don’t believe that such a project could succeed because it seems contrary to the “Tragedy of the Commons,” yet studies in prominent journals have concluded that its accuracy is quite close to that of Britannica (a publication not immune from serious errors).
There is something poetic and organic about Wikipedia that stems from the communal effort which sustains it: it is “self-healing,” simultaneously thwarting and discouraging attempts to harm its content (119); it evolves as a result of a collective desire to do a “good” thing, giving users a forum to make meaningful contributions, however small (133); and it is not “tied to extrinsic rewards”, decreasing the possibility of exploitation (134). Howard states that “any fundamental shift in the ways that human beings are able to share information has the potential for extraordinary sociopolitical impacts” (200); what, then, are the implications of instantly searchable archives of constantly updated, corrected and reviewed information becoming more and more widely available? And when, as Howard suggests it may be inevitable, it comes down to "Free Speech vs. Agents of the State" (209), will the agents be capable of containing the explosive potential unleashed? It is likely that projects resembling Wikipedia will play a significant role in the future of human development.
No comments:
Post a Comment