Here Comes Everybody

[ZeroG]

I found a very fascinating book today called "Here Comes Everybody". It is written by Clay Shirky and talks about how they internet has changed the way we spend our free time. In the brief look I had, he talked about the lady who found her StolenSidekick with the help of other people on the internet. He also talked about how Digg stood up for the people by not banning the bookmarking of DVD cracking codes. And lastly he showed how people will talk about what they want no matter what controls are placed by refering to the Young Miss magazine forum which shut completely down when pro-anorexia woman were showing other woman how to be anorexic.

Here is a good blog entry by Mr. Shirky which talks about how the internet is putting our social surplus time to constructive use.

Gin, Television, and Social Surplus

Interesting stat: Wikipedia represents 100 million man hours of work. The is one weekend worth of commercials on TV in the US.

[Ginafish]

Well, that helps explain why my kids want to blog.

[Nick Lane]

I blog, but lately I have been falling behind (as thartley) because of my interest in a couple online forums that have been stealing away my time. I am so busy but because of the internet I put it all off and find something to do, only to realize I think I am wasting my life away sitting in this chair for hours and hours.

[ZeroG]

Shirky is saying that whether it is blogging or contributing to a forum, your time is more valuable to society than sitting in front of the TV. By contributing, you become part of something and not just witness to a media circus doing what they think you want to see. On the internet, there is more variety,  richer content, less government, more individual which means more of you and people like you. Shirky is saying that the social surplus is now being channeled into a more constructive use of everyone's time.

I asked my daughter if she heard of Wikipedia. She said yes, but she said her school told her not to use it because it is not true. That just blew me away. A government run organization (public school), is telling students not to believe what is in Wikipedia! The funny thing is they will propagate chain mail about some chainsaw murderer in Texas, and believe it.

The free forum of the internet breeds truth and solid public opinion. People agreed that not returning someone's cellphone was considered stealing, but the police didn't. That is pretty powerful.

[Nick Lane]

My school also said do not use Wikipedia as a source. One teacher is particularly crazy about it.

[Mus.]

I think that's stupid. If there's no reliable source they'll just put up those notices so that people will be cautious about the article and most of the articles are well made. Besides, if you screw around with the articles they'll ip ban you, which isn't very rewarding. I learned this in the 8th grade I think, when I by the request of some buddies edited an article about emus. Something about them having a leader, a king emu with a hot dog in its ear and so forth. All the school's computers were banned from Wikipedia for some time. Good times.

[Nick Lane]

I think that's stupid. If there's no reliable source they'll just put up those notices so that people will be cautious about the article and most of the articles are well made. Besides, if you screw around with the articles they'll ip ban you, which isn't very rewarding. I learned this in the 8th grade I think, when I by the request of some buddies edited an article about emus. Something about them having a leader, a king emu with a hot dog in its ear and so forth. All the school's computers were banned from Wikipedia for some time. Good times.

Ah...I had this problem too. We would use the school IP to edit wikipedia and get a good laugh, while our home computers remained untainted. Bwahahaha!

[ZeroG]

We'll just attribute it to youthful exhuberance. Your punishment (both of you) is to collaborate and write a Wikipedia entry for that phrase, but be truthful. 

The school teacher's lack of respect-for/confidence-in the power of public opinion is tragic. You can't find a book by Darwin in the school library, and not anything on religion. Public schools are reduced to a common denominator, something greater than 0. The internet has no common denominator, so it is infinately more useful as far as communicating knowledge.

[ZeroG]

I was able to get a copy of this book from the library. I have read almost half of it and wanted to get my thoughts down.

After the discussing the events of the stolen sidekick and DVD cracking codes, he gets into how the internet is changing how we define what a journalist or photographer is. It is interesting how the internet has created an alternative to standard publishing channels. Journalists, in the traditional sense mean they are actively employed, however, this characterization falls apart when a journalist will not reveal their source because they are a 'journalist'. The internet is making people come clean with the truth because everybody has to live up to the standards culture puts on them, and not hide behind their 'journalistic priviledges'.

Also, in the section 'everyone is a media outlet' he shows how we are no longer at the mercy of traditional media outlets determining what is and isn't news.
We can choose now, and the public decides what is and isn't news. This got me thinking about why people still tune to fox and cnn for news. We had this discussion here so I noticed how he didn't address this. One idea I have is that people still want news spoon fed to them, they are too lazy to seek out news.

He then goes into how there is a lot of stuff on the internet which is just not very useful to more than a couple of people, but then takes that further to show how something like Wikipedia is an excellent example of people working together to provide real content.

One of the more interesting chapters is where he shows how the internet removes t standard obstacles for collective action. He points to the sexual abuse scandal of the Catholic church and how it was handled in 1992 vs. 2002. Allowing people to discuss and talk about the problems with one particular priest exposed the depth of the problem and allowed the laity to take back the church.

[Nick Lane]

I might have to pick this up when my work load calms down. The points you make are quite interesting and I cannot dispute them nor comment on them - except one. Maybe I can shed a little light on this issue for you, at least from my point of view.

The reason I watch FOX is not because I want news spoon fed to me it is because I enjoy it. If I am watching one of the commentary shows (like O'Reilly) it is because I like the show. The second reason is because I want to know what is happening in the world. If I turn on FOX when they are doing just the news (and not opinion) like I do every morning during the school year, that is just because I want to know what is happening and any breaking news that might interest me before I start the car. The other reason is because I can't watch the other channels (particularly MSNBC) because they have an obvious left tilt that I can't stomach.

I don't know if that helped or if that is everyone else's reason, but it is mine.

[Ginafish]

Regarding ZeroG's thought: One idea I have is that people still want news spoon fed to them, they are too lazy to seek out news.

The definition of a person who seeks out news: Journalist. Now, realistically, each individual does not have the time or resources to be their own journalist. I can't go the Capital and interview a congressperson about why they are voting one way or another, nor can I call the insurance companies and get a straight answer about how does health care work. Eventually, it all has to be condensed and filtered for us 'regular joes'. There are too many things I find newsworthy and not enough time to investigate what is going on and how can I change things.

I do, however, think it is lazy to rely on a limited number of news sources which it seems most people do. Pick one, one newspaper or one news program seems to be the way of many people. What if they could at least expand their news sources to five? I think that'd be a great start for most people.

Another point mentioned is that journalist are more apt to come clean with their resources rather than hide behind "journalistic privileges". This is a good/bad thing to me. On the one hand, we need to trust journalist to tell the truth, and on the other, we do not need to fear the consequences of telling journalists the truth. Anonymity has lead to many breakthroughs but it has to be in the hands of the right journalist.

[ZeroG]

The author is saying that the internet has made everyone who writes a blog or takes a picture a 'journalist'. He is also saying that this model is changing who makes the decision on what is news. It is putting it in the hands of the average Joe. My comment was more regarding the fact that despite this better model, it hasn't really changed the content of the tv news. I feel it is because people want it filtered or just don't have the time to seek it themselves. Personally I can't watch more than 5 minutes of the news on the tv. But, i also don't really seek out news either.

Reading on in the book, brought me to a chapter where he shows how the internet is allowing for a new way to protest the establishment. It isn't exactly new, and he sites the chain of events leading to the destruction of the Berlin wall to show how it worked in the past. He shows how easy it is to organize 'flash mobs', and take advantage the publicizing the response of the establishment to these protests.

One example he had was a protest involving people eating ice cream in Oktyabrskaya Square. You can see how they used photos to show how ridiculous the kgb looked dragging away a young lady eating ice cream.

[Nick Lane]

I love the way that anyone can open a blog - and I take advantage of that feature. I have been on a hiatus from my political blog, however, and hope to return in the coming week.

[ZeroG]

The next chapter in the book talks about 'social capital' and how the internet has created new  ways to facilitate this. He shows how social capital is a 'shadow of the future', in other words, you help people with the faith that someone will help you in the future. He goes into how people have organized into groups with common interests. These groups can be so specialized that it isn't just White Stripes fans, but White Stripes fans in Walla Walla. The interesting thing is how a site like meetup.com appeals to people's basic need to be with other real people.

This chapter is where he gets into how the internet is not immune to people forming groups which are not really acceptable to society (ie. the Pro-Ana group mentioned in the start of this thread). The lower transaction costs allow groups to discuss topics of common interest, with people of common interest, much more cheaply than before. He sites the decline of bowling leagues and rotary clubs as proof of this change. I guess this is all very obvious, however it is a fresh point of view on this new technology you are experiencing right now by reading what I am writing.

[Ginafish]

Hmm... so I understand the decline of bowling leagues since those type are primarily social clubs, but I would view the rotary club as a business networking type thing and I'm not sure that the internet could really change that need for 'networking'. Does the phone and email and the fact that there are many more online businesses change this and I'm just behind the times?

[ZeroG]

I just finished the book and must say that it was very good. It has given me a fresh look at the social tools which have been developed as a result of the internet. I guess it appealed to me because I am intrigued by social issues (eg. philosophy)  and computers. This tied everything together for me, and was very easy to read.

The last few chapters dealt with the basic human networking and 'the small world' concept. He talked about how the most successful networks are made up of smaller networks interconnected by human 'bridges'. He also showed how innovation occurs where there is diversity in a group.  He explained why Linux was so successful, and why GNU struggled for years before Linux came along.

The last chapter talked about why some social groups succeed and some fail. He narrowed it down to 3 necessary criteria: Promise, Tools and Bargain. The promise is what the value the group promises to bring to you. The tools are the mechanism by which this value is obtained. The bargain is basically the rules you must abide by in order to participate and receive the value promised.

I found this real-time book review process very helpful. Writing down summaries of chapters as I went along really helped the process. This is probably only good for non-fiction books or technical books. Might not be good to summarize a mystery for example.  Also, I think doing this increased my comprehension of the book.

[thartley]

Serial Book Reviews...they were great. 

The one thing that I find interesting, and maybe you can go into a little more detail about, is the concept of innovation through diversity in the group.  Did the book go into possible pitfalls of diversity or the struggles it may also cause, or why it may not always work?

[ZeroG]

Thanks thartley!

I found that innovation part very interesting. In fact, at work I sent an e-mail to an internal bulletin board dedicated to collaboration.
Here is part of it:

In the chapter "Fitting Our Tools to a Small World" the author quotes an extensive and very detailed manuscript by Ronald Burt called Social Origins of Good Ideas. 

What is interesting about this chapter is how better ideas come from groups which span social holes. Here is a relevant quote he (the author) included from Burt's paper.

People whose networks span structural holes have early access to diverse, often contradictory, information and interpretations which gives them a competitive advantage in delivering good ideas. People connected to groups beyond their own can expect to find themselves delivering valuable ideas, seeming to be gifted with creativity.

In the manuscript, Shirky does a good job of summarizing some of the ideas and concepts used in Burt's manuscript.

When sociologists talk about social capital, they often make the distinction between bonding capital and bridging capital. Bonding capital is an increase in the depth of the connections and trust within a relatively homogeneous group; bridging capital is a increase in connections among relatively heterogeneous groups.

He then goes on to use this to quote Burt's phrase: bridging capital puts people at greater risk of having good ideas.

Ronald Burt's manuscript goes into much more detail about this fascinating idea of diversity creating innovation.

[thartley]

Well, Isara comes to mind when reading your comments on this book. (I thought you had mentioned Isara also, but now that I think about it, was Ishamel the book you compared in theory to Isara?)  Seems to me that our social capital has a bit of overlaying between the bonding and the building capitals.  Everyone here has the desire to do good and make a difference as a common factor, but what we each bring to the table in terms of ideas is of a more diverse pool of thought.

Am I even close?

[ZeroG]

With isara being in it's early stages of life, yes, I agree that the diversity of the people in this forum is helping isara develop some good ideas. However, the chapter where he talks about the three criteria for success is what I think relates more completely to isara's longterm success.

The Promise: By making isara.org your home page you can make a difference.
The Tools: Sponsor money generated through the site goes directly to projects which you can see for yourself at work.
The Bargain: If you contribute, focus on good, fun and uplifting ideas only.