Which collective? The collective tending towards the mean (Was Re:
[iDC] Table Tennis, Schmeb 2, List Dynamics,
and Autonomous Uses of Sociable Web Media)
nick knouf
nknouf at media.mit.edu
Fri Jun 16 00:55:57 EDT 2006
Dear list members,
Perhaps too late for this discussion, but I will write anyway...
I'm new to the list and have followed the recent posts about sociable
web media with great interest. Like Miguel, I too harbor intense
reservations regarding the ultimate "transformative" power of
collective workspaces like Flickr, MySpace, Wikipedia, etc. The
remarks in this post will certainly come across as criticisms, yet as
Ryan mentioned in his recent post in regard to Latour, I am still
searching for a "positive" politics that can use these techniques in
a constructive way. I lack such a methodology, but I hope that that
discussions on this list and elsewhere will lead to such a thing.
I also encourage any corrections to things I write!
== Which collective? ==
In the doubly-removed quote in Trebor's original e-mail below,
O'Reilly mentions the "collective intelligence" in the context of
blogs. But of course this "intelligence", to use his term, could be
said to exist amongst the images on Flickr, the sounds and networks
on MySpace, and the amalgam of words on Wikipedia. Even if
collectives are by most definitions amorphous, they still posses some
semblance of structure, some set of constraints that in a certain
sense limits their output to a set of combinations of their inputs.
To move beyond this simplistic definition, the results of human
collectives reflect in some fashion the desires, motivations,
feelings, and knowledge of the individual people who are (or find
themselves lumped together as) a collective. The trope of the whole
(collective) still requires the individual parts (people) and thus
the individual still influences (in some fashion) the process or result.
Thus when we talk of the "collective intelligence" of tagging
communities on Flickr or del.icio.us, or aggregation services like
digg, we have to ask: which collective? Which group of people are
taking on the responsibility of adding annotations to these images,
selecting the news for us to see? We put our trust into an
amorphous, oftentimes anonymous, crowd; they select and organize
information on our behalf. That collective process is, in at least
the cases I've seen so far, a simple "majority rules" measure. The
popular rises to the top; the marginal and unpopular never makes it
to the front page. (See some of Walter Bender's early work in
electronic publishing, specifically his ideas of the personalized
newspaper and the "Digital Me": see the end of this page: http://
web.media.mit.edu/~walter/) In many cases we have no practical way
to respond if we dislike the selection of tags or links: the standard
response is "get involved", tag things yourself, digg links yourself,
and so on. Which might actually be the appropriate request.
However, it flies against one of the purposes of these sites, which
is to enable others to experience the results of the collective work
of the site's users.
So we have to ask ourselves, what are the motivations of people who
work for free, finding the most novel links, burrowing through the
depths of horrible site after horrible site to "digg" the novel one,
developing and tagging all of their photos and works for others to
browse? The usual recourse is to the overtly-economic term "social
capital", the unmeasurable value that somehow determines the stature
of someone within a social network. And while, yes, that or some
other theoretical formulation might be appropriate, but what I want
to suggest is that these people have a much more measurable amount of
capital: _temporal_ capital. The people who post the most to these
collaborative Web 2.0 sites are those who have the most time to spend
on the task. For them, the garnering of social capital (or whatever
you want to call it) is the best thing for them to do with their
limited amount of time. For they could use this time to write a
poem, cut up zucchini for dinner, or work for their local political
party; but they would rather work for free for some broader public.
Those who have other commitments cannot participate to the same
extent, and I would hazard a guess that this would include the usual
groups that are commonly disenfranchised when the luxury of time is
considered.
Not only, then, do the results of these collective activities depend
on people for whom we do not know their motivations; the results also
depend on those who have the most temporal freedom to participate.
Not that we do not have similar concerns with more traditional media
systems. While a print journalist is spending her time writing the
article because she is being paid for it, we do not necessarily know
her motivation for doing so. Yet we _do_ know who she is, in some
objective sense; with the interesting exception of anonymous sources
and pseudonyms, we know who all of the actors are in the news
article. The details of the collective are potentially unpredictable
or unknowable, but in my experiences with these sites, this has not
happened interestingly in practice.
== The disturbing trend towards the mean in collectives ==
I recently read an intriguing article and discussion on the Edge
prompted by an essay by Jaron Lanier entitled "The Hazards of the New
Online Collectivism":
essay: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html
"discussion": http://www.edge.org/discourse/digital_maoism.html
(I put discussion in quotes because, interestingly, it does not use a
format of either a wiki or commenting system; I'd describe it rather
as a set of responses limited to selected participants, in a direct
and oddly comforting contrast to what I was talking about earlier..)
Lanier makes a number of provocative points, but I want to focus on
the idea of averaging. As mentioned above, so many of these sites
use simple rankings, or majority measures, to determine the featured
tags or the highlighted articles. This de facto or overt averaging
of the selections of the collective has infiltrated the traditional
space as well, with Lanier describing the recent practice of the New
York Times in "averaging opinions" by featuring op-ed pieces
supporting intelligent design. While this might represent a lack of
scientific knowledge on the part of the editors (disturbing in its
own right), I would agree with his interpretation.
A collective approach to things tends to marginalize the radical, the
novel, the contrarian. Such ideas become lost in the variance,
defined by terms such as "outliers". Discourse clusters around the
mean, with the most potentially interesting and meaningful thoughts
deemed to be "insignificant" as they fall plus or minus two sigma
away from mu. Where is the space for the unorthodox _grounded_
ideas? Where the visitors to these sites can really discover the
imaginative? Where we can debate the original thoughts that might be
able to move people towards new means, to new averages, or to
eliminate the need for a single "average" altogether? I guess part
of the design of lists such as this one is to help explore answers to
the last question, but I am still wondering about the more popular
services.
Not that I have a solution to this problem (if it exists) of
averaging. Simple solutions (if they exist) might be to consider
other metrics of voting, as some municipalities and states (in the US
and other places) have used, such as instant runoff voting. Yet I am
certain that the real answer is much more complicated.
== And this is where I ask others on the list... ==
Perhaps the not-so-well-hidden value judgments here might be a bit
too harsh; I certainly would appreciate thoughts from others about
places where I've considered things in an over-simplistic fashion.
That is, if you have the time :-)
Best,
nick
On Jun 12, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Trebor Scholz wrote:
> [...]
> Nicholas Carr:
>
> ³Not long ago, the big-time tech publisher and conference
> impresario was
> talking up Web 2.0 as a means of achieving a "technology-mediated"
> higher consciousness. But a shadow seems to have fallen across
> O'Reilly's optimism. In a commencement speech last month, he
> cautioned,
> "If history is any guide, the democratization promised by Web 2.0 will
> eventually be succeeded by new monopolies [which] will have enormous
> power over our lives - and may use it for good or ill." A couple of
> weeks ago, after being mugged in abstentia by a hysterical blog mob,
> O'Reilly said the experience "has shaken my faith in the collective
> intelligence of the blogosphere."
> [...]
> Call it whatever you like, sociable web media will be my term of
> choice,
> but the question of autonomous uses of these participatory web
> architectures despite their enormous potential to turn into a
> participatory panopticon, still matter a great deal.
>
> -Trebor
More information about the iDC
mailing list