Thursday, September 9, 2010

Shirky: Here Comes Everybody

Shirky's book is about the numerous ways in which technology has changed our lives, both for the better and for the worse. Many of the things he discusses have become so commonplace to most of us that we do not realize how different life would be without them. One of the many positive things that all these advances in technology has brought us is the ability to disseminate new information at a rapid pace and at low cost. Shirky often mentioned the popular website Wikipedia. Before reading this book I had negative ideas about Wikipedia. It seemed to me to be nothing but a completely untrustworthy site that allowed everyone to act as experts, and develop definitions and explanations of things they may know nothing about. After reading the book, I realize that the power of groups is stronger than I realized. The genius of the website is that it allows users to continually build on what others have already written, and also to delete anything that they disagree with or know to be incorrect. Through time, the information becomes surprisingly accurate and in-depth. A surprising use of the website that I had not realized before is the fact that it is helpful in informing the public of current events. Shirky discusses the fact that when major events occur, users will create a new Wikipedia entry for that event. This entry will continually be updated as more information about the event is released. In this way, it is almost like a news channel. I found that to be very interesting. This topic also got me thinking about how vulnerable the site actually is. Anyone with a lot of free time on their hands could potentially destroy much of the site by simply deleting entries. I am pleasantly surprised by the fact that most people who add entries to the site do so with positive intentions.

The ability for masses of heterogeneous people to communicate rapidly at low cost has brought about many changes in society as a whole. One of the topics that Shirky discussed that hit close to home with me was the idea of "Social Capital" and the fact that it seems to be disappearing. Shirky described this as, “that mysterious but critical set of characteristics of functioning communities” (Shirky Pg. 102). In other words, it is the sense of community and trust. It is the willingness of neighbors to lend a helping hand, and the sense of safety that comes with knowing you can rely and trust those around you. It is also the simple acts of kindness and friendliness. The fact that this concept is slowly dwindling away is sad, but not news to me. I was raised in a small town in Iowa where we knew all our neighbors. If someone new moved into the neighborhood they were greeted with baked goods and warm welcome. My parents could trust that my friends and I were safe exploring the neighborhood because they knew we would be looked after and safe from “strangers”. While walking or driving around, everyone waved and smiled at those that they passed. It was quite the culture shock from that small town in Iowa to the busy city in Minnesota. None of our neighbors came to greet us when we moved in, and our friendly waves and smiles were met with glares and looks of confusion. It seemed that our new home lacked the concept of social capital. One wonders if this is due to the fact that perhaps bigger cities are more technologically advanced, in that they have more resources readily available. In other words, perhaps this decline in face-to-face social interaction is due to the fact that more people are getting used to communicating through technology. Of course one can not overlook the fact that people are also increasingly busy and have less time to get together, or do things for their neighbor. I did some further research on this topic and found a great site that discusses exactly what I am talking about. The link to this site is: http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/. I highly suggest checking it out, it has links to a variety of other helpful resources on the subject.

By no means am I trying to say that new technology is all bad, but we must look at the negatives along with the positives. There are in fact many positive aspects of this advanced means of communication. Ideas are spread quickly, and can be heard from all individuals, not just experts. The Internet allows everyone to become a journalist of sorts. These blogs for instance allow all of us to become published in a way. We are able to write about any topic that interests us, and display it in a mass medium that the entire world can access. We are able to meet people that we otherwise never could have, and form groups with those that have the same interests. Many of these groups can be formed around a powerful cause to end a great injustice. Shirky talks about VOTF (Voices of the Faithful) that formed around the collective shock and anger about the sexual abuse committed by Priests. Here is a link to their site: http://www.votf.org/. These types of groups raise awareness about important issues and can help to generate the support needed to put an end to such acts of injustice. The cause can be something as small and simple as trying to save a television show. If enough people join together and create enough stir about a topic, they can make a change. This idea is exciting and somewhat frightening at the same time. The power of groupthink is astounding, and can come with extremely negative consequences. One extreme and well-known example of this would be the Holocaust. Hitler was able to convince thousands of people that mass murder was not only acceptable, but necessary. We can see further examples of this with Charles Manson, or the phenomenon of cults that commit mass suicide. One wonders how much more damage Hitler could have done had he the range of technology that we do today. For further information on the power of groupthink, including more examples, visit this site: http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/groupthink.htm

Obviously there are a number of issues that go along with the introduction of new technology into society. Things are going to change, but what is important is that the good changes outweigh the bad. Because of the Internet we are able to communicate easily and frequently with masses of people. We are able to learn about events that are happening within minutes of the news breaking. We have an endless supply of knowledge at our fingertips and the ability to add to that knowledge and leave our individual mark on the world. We can spread the news of crisis and rally for support and aide. The abilities the Internet gives us are endless and always growing. I believe we will continue to find new uses of this technology, and develop even more new things that will drastically change the world as we know it. I will end with a quote from Shirky that I believe sums up this whole concept really well:

“Whenever you improve a group’s ability to communicate internally, you change the things it is capable of. What the group does with that power is a separate question.”(Shirky Pg. 171)

5 comments:

  1. At the beginning of your blog, you mentioned how you strongly disliked Wikipedia and thought it completely untrustworthy. I disagree with that (even though you back it up later). I've always thought of Wikipedia as one of the many starting grounds to either gather thoughts or research to start somewhere, whether it be a paper, discussion or a blog. I never would think of citing Wikipedia, but if you scroll to the bottom of the page you can see references and use those sites as something of a direction after using your judgment if they are reliable or not.

    I do like your article you cited about groupthink and how much more damage Hitler could've done had he had what we have today. Groups can use their collective power to their advantage, which may not be to the advantage of all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I always thought that being able to communicate with a mass amount of people at once was a good thing, but do you think there are any downfalls to this? When would it be a bad thing?

    I like that you discuss that there are positives and negatives to new technology, although I think that new technology will always be a good thing because it is how we progress as a society. (Negative=glitches).

    Sarah L

    ReplyDelete
  3. It was the same for me, before reading this book i also had negative ideas about wickipedia and when you said that it really doesn't matter cause they all are the same in that way. someone one in one way or another is manipulating what is said and what we are viewing so we really have to be careful with the research we do and the things we read and choose to believe. Its really kind of scary when you think about it because then it makes me think what is really real then? is everything sugarcoated? seems like is sometimes depending on what your reading i guess.

    its kind of scary to think about what is coming and what is going to be out when we are older like our parents and elders. TImes are changing so fast its going to be hard to keep up! but i too believe that we do have an endless supply of knowledge at our fingertips and the technology that is coming for the future really will change the world in many ways.

    i learned alot from this book i really enjoyed Shirky's point of view. And i really like your review i find myself agreeing with alot you have said throughout.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wikipedia is one use of wiki technology or collaborative content creation. Can you see other uses of wiki technology, that is multiple individuals collectively creating content that is greater than one person could have achieved. In other situations, does there need to be a final decision maker to say "it done"? Could this lead to anarchy in the process? Could this technology be used for journalistic purposes?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The only other examples I can think of that represent wiki technology would perhaps be sites such as YouTube, or perhaps books created by multiple authors. I think that in all situations, there should be a final decision maker. Without this, the final product would always be changing which makes it not very useful. I think that journalists could look to this technology for additional information, but not as the basis for their articles.

    ReplyDelete