The problem with data creation
Is it lacks any standardization
My X and my Y
Are different to that guy
And prevents sharing interpretation
I like economic theories. I do. Comes presumably from having a mother that is an economist. While Benkler is not solely focused on economic concerns, his theories are strongly driven by economic factors. While I read it from the viewpoint of someone who is a firm believer in capitalism, I do definitely see the merit of the open source movement and the value of incorporating non-market production into market economies.
I had several concerns with some of Benkler's speculations, most notably on page 13, where he spoke about the changes in media distribution. While I do think that this is possibly the best description of Internet information distribution I have ever read, he fails to acknowledge that access and distribution are not at all remotely neutral yet between the solitary information provider and the megacorporation. Despite the ability of solitary entities to gain some followers, their presence in the grand scheme of the information being shared is ephemeral because of their lack of capital backing. Are we in a period of transition? Undoubtedly. But media distribution conglomerates are not losing relevance-- they're merging with each other and forming larger corporations. As popular as Winston the Cat is, he will never have the same influence of a single one of hulu.com's advertisers because he lacks the capital backing. It's okay, I'll wait for you to finish the video before I continue. He's a weird looking cat, isn't he?
Where Benkler's ideas really DO start to be thought-provoking though, are in parts like page 14, where he says "More ambitiously, we begin to see in agricultural research a combined effort of public, nonprofit and open-source-like efforts being developed and applied to problems of agricultural innovation. The ultimate purpose is to develop a set of basic capabilities that would allow collaboration among farmers and scientists, in both poor countries and around the globe, to develop better, more nutritious crops to improve food security throughout the poorer regions of the world.” Without analyzing at length, because it merits an extensive post (or paper) of its own, perhaps it is more productive to uncouple the analysis of communication collaborations for educational/research purposes and ones for entertainment purposes.
When just looking at educational/research purposes, the power of a network of that size becomes awe-inspiring, but also begins to create some of the problems outlined in "The Fourth Paradigm". What do you do with so much data and so many collaborators without standardizing your information delivery? How do you handle peer review? How can you assure quality and authenticity of data?
When I was coming up with the discussion questions for this week's class, I kept coming back to a few ideas, mostly ones of information sorting and information retrieval. In my line of work, I do have a lot of concerns with both of these things-- I work with digital video. Issues of archival metadata, file compatibility and data integrity are huge. Even as we continue to create terabyte after terabyte of information, we do so without adequate answers to these questions. I'd gotten so used to looking at it through such a narrow lens, I hadn't even considered the similar (and far more pressing) problems facing scientific fields or the catastrophic consequences that not answering these questions would have for a large sector of the economy and our long-term collective knowledge.
One last thought... Gray says, "And note, parenthetically, that the Internet is really turning into an object-oriented system where people fetch objects." It was a side note in a much greater question, but it really resonated. I have been trying to think of all the things I use the internet for-- academic research, social interaction, shopping, casual research, playing stupid games... he's not wrong. These are all objects. I'm striving to think of what else it could be used for and when framed in such general terms, it is difficult to imagine.
Re: your last question about what else the internet could be for besides fetching certain objects, what about to get a certain feeling? I think much of social networking is not actually about objects (although obviously there are objects involved), but rather about a sense of connections. I'd think there might be other examples as well. One of the Benkler's most interesting insights, I think, is that peoples' relationship toward their social and political milieux changes when they start to feel that they can produce and participate more.
ReplyDeleteStarting with the last part first...
ReplyDeleteI agree completely, but the problem is that people FEEL that way but, for the most part, their participation and production is minimal at best, more an illusion of participation and activism. Me complaining about the state of the government in my Twitter isn't going to do anything except make me feel like I have "made my voice heard" with my #taxessuck hash tag, and that perpetuates both catharsis and apathy.
Obama's campaign being a startling example to the contrary, we're still about twenty years away from having sufficient data (I think) to judge if Internet participation is improving people's real involvement.
Perhaps it is just allowing the voiceless a sense of being heard. I'm not going to deny that that's a very very powerful thing, but I know from limited sample sets of my friends in the last ten years that they complain about things that upset them on the Internet, and then don't actually DO anything to change those things (e.g. volunteer for a political campaign, engage in an effective boycott of an objectionable company)
And as to the first point, isn't the feeling an object that you are seeking as well? Validation? Connection? It may not be tangible, but it if you want "It" (whatever "It" may be to you), you can find "It" on the internet.