Mike818's Blog

Only on the internet could all three of the things in the title make sense. But it doesn’t undermine how amazing the internet truly is.  Who would’ve though that the issue of tainted beef imports would be protested by teenage girls in South Korea, on a boy band forum of all things?  It really is a case of “only on the internet”. It’s really unbelievable that such an issue could become so important, especially among that demographic. Furthermore, it sheds a light on a truth of the 21st century; if there is an issue (small or large) in one part of the world, chances are everyone else will find out thanks to the web.  This is because in the past decade we’ve seen an explosion in the way people can share and create content.  The barriers to produce content, namely cost and exposure, have largely disappeared.  You or I can go online, write something, and publish it with the click of one button…like I will be doing at the end of this post.

Unfortunately, the downside is that the quality of the content has taken a bit of a nosedive, and this is an issue of contention for me.  In my opinion, much of what is on the internet has become “fluff”.  If you look at Facebook and Twitter, the vast majority of “amateur content” is people posting, or tweeting frivolous things.  And rightfully so, it is within their right to express themselves in whatever way they please.  However, I feel like that effort could be better spent creating what Shirky referred to as “civic” value.

If every one of us with access to social media took time out of our day to, post, tweet, or comment on something important in our community or around the world we could possibly effect serious change; regardless of whether that issue has any intrinsic value to us.  This isn’t to say that it hasn’t already been done, look at KONY 2012.  Yet, what happened to it now?  The issues still remain, but it seems among most social media platforms it has started to lose some steam.  There is no lasting effort to make sure that an issue remains relevant, and yet the tools are there to make sure it does.  If we attempt to affect serious change we need to make sure it lasts.  We’ve seen it can be accomplished in South Korea, and around the world, just look at the “Arab Spring”.

The reason I bring attention to this is because we are truly a global society.  What happens around the world affects us in one way or another.  So even if the issue doesn’t have a direct impact on us, that shouldn’t undermine the importance of it in the grand scheme of thing.  We have the tools to express our opinions and collaborate with others, lets use them to bring about serious, lasting change.  Strangely, I suppose what I’m really saying is that we could all learn a thing or two from South Korean teenage girls.

After reading Chapter 5, one thing that definitely piqued my interest was “power law” distribution. I had heard the term before (outside of a statistics class) but really couldn’t remember where I’d heard it. So as usual, I went to Wikipedia to look it up, and lo and behold it referenced where I had heard the term. I had read about it in a book by Malcolm Gladwell; he referenced the problems of homelessness as following a power law distribution. If you’re interested to know more the exact article from the book is here (It’s a really good read). However, what’s more interesting about my actions is that my first instinct was to go to Wikipedia.

See, I could’ve easily grabbed all of my Gladwell books and try to find the chapter referencing power law distribution, but that would’ve consumed more time than necessary, so naturally I went to Wikipedia. Over the years, despite claims of its illegitimacy, Wikipedia has become one of my go to sources for anything that I don’t know (as it has for most people). I would go so far as to argue that it is one of the most legitimate sources on the web, based on those qualities that Shirky describes. The beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that it’s based on unstructured collaboration. It succeeded where Nupedia failed (cruel irony?). Wikipedia for the most part is devoid of profit motives, or rigid hierarchical structures. The line between user and contributor is almost non existent. Furthermore, contributors exist in this weird kind of competitive atmosphere, where they constantly check each others facts and update articles with newer, more accurate information.

I believe that what Shirky is framing in Chapter 5 as well as 6 is that new media is removing obstacles and allowing users to collaborate with each other in unprecedented ways. I mean look at how quickly the Catholic Church had to react to all the negative publicity because of the way V.O.T.F was able to use new media tools to organize and spread its message. In my last post I referenced this sudden explosion in new media as being revolutionary, challenging the status quo, and I’m glad Shirky feels the same way. What V.O.T.F did was use new media to makes its voice heard to the Catholic Church. In the same way Wikipedia not only challenges the traditional encyclopedia, but also challenges our misconceptions of the effectiveness of unstructured collaboration. Tools such as Wikipedia, blogs, or even e-mail, are giving users the ability to not only create content, but distribute it to such diverse audiences on an unprecedented scale; and I hope that this will continue to be the norm.

There is a lot that can be said about the rise of new media technology and its influence on the world.  I remember when I received my first cellphone, and the most amazing thing about it was that it came with a camera!  Granted it was one of those terrible VGA cameras (before the days of 5 and 8 mega pixel shooters) so the quality was never anything to get excited about.  Nevertheless, it was great being able to have a camera on me at all times so that I could capture all the stupid stuff that teenagers tend to do.  Little did I realize back then what an impact the marriage of these two technologies would have on the entire world.

The point of all this, and more importantly what I think Shirky is trying to say in the first three chapters is; new media technologies have created a revolution of sorts.  I use the word revolution because that is exactly what this is, for something to be considered a revolution it needs to challenge the “establishment”, the status quo, per se.  We are in the middle of a technological revolution that is challenging many of the traditional industries and professions that have been around for decades, even centuries.  I mean just look what the rise of the blogosphere has done to traditional journalism?

While I still feel that these industries wont ever disappear, just because they offer something the “amateur” cannot, you’ve got to be amazed at how quickly the internet and new technology has changed the landscape.  Twenty or thirty years ago if you told someone that one day there would be computers that would fit in the palm of your hand and phones would have cameras they might have approached you with an air of skepticism.  Yet, this is the reality we live in, technology will continue to evolve, all the while providing more power to the average user, while allowing us to collaborate with each other in new and inventive ways.

Shirky spends considerable amount of time talking about journalism and photography, but I feel like those things are the tip of the iceberg.  For example, look at Kickstarter.  It’s basically a website where people can put their ideas, inventions, business proposals etc. out there for the rest of the Internet to see.  If someone likes your idea, they can contribute funds to help you get things going.  Twenty years ago you would’ve had to spend considerable money and time to shop your idea to different people on the hope that someone would like it.  Kickstarter has changed that dynamic, instead of you going to investors, investors can come to you; all while having your creations displayed for an international audience.

This is collaboration in the 21st century, and the best thing about it is that it gives you and I the ability to interact with each other in unprecedented ways.  Mail is now e-mail, print is now digital, and CD’s are now MP3s. All the old ways of doing things have suddenly become new again, and I think maybe we’re better off for it.