The rise of networked technologies such as the internet, have sparked a turning point in the role of audiences. Rather than participating solely as individual consumers; we now have the ability to collectively act as fans, producers, distributors, publicists and critics (Jenkins, 2002, 157). Consequently, we are seeing the rise of virtual communities within which we have the tools to build social networks and social capital; share knowledge and information; and enable new modes of democratic participation in public life (Flew, 2004, 62). In addition to this, the internet’s breaking down of geographical constraints has allowed users to easily search and select the users they wish to interact with based on a commonality of interests and goals rather than having to interact with those within a close proximity (Flew, 2004, 63).
The increased speed, frequency, and ease of communication that high speed networked computing has brought about has resulted in a phenomenal increase in the amount of information produced and therefore accessible. This new ‘library’ is bigger than any other before it and as a result, the following question has arisen: how can all this newly created information be organised?
Traditionally, ontological classification or categorization has been used to organise information (Shirky, 2008). By definition, this approach involves ‘organizing a set of entities into a group’ (Shirky, 2008). While this may have been an effective way to organise material information in the past (such as books in a library), it is ‘overrated in terms of its value in the digital world’ (Shirky, 2008).
As indicated by Shirky (2008), ‘in the digital world, there is no physical constraint that’s forcing this kind of organization on us any longer’. Rather than grouping information into a top-down organisation scheme, the Web allows us to create a unique identifier for everything, and once this is done, anyone can label or tag URL’s in ways that make them more valuable. This means that there are ‘no fixed set of categories or officially approved choices’ (Shirky, 2008).
On first thought, you might argue that this will create an incredible amount of ‘trash’ mixed with valuable information, making it hard to distinguish between the two. The thing is, by utilising tags, value is created by grouped classifications over time (Shirky, 2008). In the end, these grouped classifications will become ‘more valuable than professional categorisation schemes, particularly with regards to robustness and cost of creation’ (Shirky, 2008).
So as you can see, we are slowing creating a collaborative form of organisation that effectively allows us to manage such a powerful source of information like the Web. As stated by Shirky (2008), ‘by letting users tag URL’s and then aggregating those tags, we’re going to be able to build alternative organizational systems, systems that, like the Web itself, do a better job of letting individuals create value for one another, often without realising it’.
There are a lot of new ideas that I have tried to summarise in the above paragraphs. Clay Shirky’s article is particularly interesting with regards to new ways of organising information. I have done my best to summarise his main points, but it would be really worthwhile to read it yourself if you want to get a better grasp of the points I have outlined.
Till next time,
Annelise
Reference List
Shirky, C. 2008. Ontology Is Overrated: Categories, Links and Tags. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky (accessed 4th April, 2008).
Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive Audiences. In The New Media Book, ed. D. Harries, 157-170. London: BFI Publishing
Flew, T. 2004. New Media: An IntroductionI 2nd ed. Melbourne, QUP.
