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.
2 comments:
Annelise,
I have to agree with you that Shirky's article on the organisation of information in the new digital age is intriguing. I believe you have summarised the main points very well, and would like to express an opinion on the mixture of 'trash' and valuable information you mentioned. A question that arose for me, as I wrote my blog entry on this topic, was indeed the argument that by virtue of the democratic nature of the internet, valuable information will inevitably become inconspicuous among ‘trash’. You have clearly summarised the value of tagging information in a way that I had not considered; that people give the information they find value by tagging it in a way meaningful to them. I would like to challenge this only by saying that if the participants in this process tag information according to personal value, which is the arguably the case, then this tagging process may not create the ‘ideal’ separation between valuable and rubbish information. Thus, I put forward the suggestion that online communities can not exactly ‘organise’ themselves, because there is debatably no clear cut method for organisation. That is, it is not the ‘online communities’ which organise themselves, but the individuals who organise information according to their own personal needs.
Aside from this, a well written and informative blog entry :-)
Sarah D
Sarah,
Thanks for your comment. I do agree that the separation of valuable information from ‘trash’ is quite a contentious issue when it comes to user-led organisation. Indeed, individual tagging seems very unreliable. The point I was trying to make, is that value can be created by collective organization. That is, the more people tag a particular source in the same way, the more valuable it becomes. This type of collective intelligence (which Jenkins outlines particularly well in Interactive Audiences? page 158) has been adopted by a number of new media environments. Wikipedia is probably the best example of an arena where various users combine their knowledge to create and edit a valuable source. As Sanger (Bruns, 2008, 108) suggests, ‘Wikipedia’s self-correction process is very robust. There is considerable value created by the public review process that is continually ongoing on Wikipedia – value that is very easy to underestimate, for those who have not experienced it adequately’. This is a very important point. As we are seeing such a drastic transformation in the ways we organize and create value in the produsage environment, it is becoming more and more important to understand how we can determine quality and accuracy and be familiar with the newly available tools to examine that quality. For a bit more depth on this topic, have a read of my blog entry ‘Can Produsage Environments Separate Valuable Information from Trash?.
Bruns, A. Wikipedia: Representations of Knowledge. In Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. 101-136. New York: Peter Lang.
Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive Audiences. In The New Media Book, ed. D. Harries, 157-170. London: BFI Publishing
Post a Comment