Web 2.0, the internet, wikis, blogs, social networking...these are scaring academics/professionals with jobs.
Technology is changing, and simultaneously, traditional experts' hold on information has fizzled. Some are speaking out against the mediums that threaten their elite status, suggesting they lack credibility. Yet they make some poor arguments:
- Because someone has published papers and has degrees, their statements are correct. Younger less-experienced people's arguments are inherently incorrect due to their resume. Counter: Let the best argument win, regardless of the source. The next recognized expert probably doesn't have any credentials yet anyway.
- Blogs and wikis lack verity because they are mostly written by teens and amateurs? Counter: What blogs are you reading? I can't think of a single popular blog on a professional subject maintained by teenager writing poorly and incoherently.
I say let the best man win regardless of who they are. Free market liberalism for ideas and expertise. (Here, let Adam Smith explain it to you since I'm just an amateur) Some subjects might not need a PhD and years of professional expertise in order to come up with a solution. Why not diversify the conversation?
An example: My friend went to the hospital with extreme abdominal pain. His girlfriend googled his symptoms, and the two were pretty convinced it was a kidney stone (ouch). They arrived in the ER, and after explaining all the symptoms, could the doctor figure it out? No. Not until his girlfriend said, "could it be a kidney stone?" Now, sure, doctors aren't replaceable, and this wasn't a bad doctor per say. But did the girlfriend need framed degrees in order to diagnose my friend? No. But by participating she got the process going (pain meds).
Info democracy in action.
People fear what they don't understand. I wonder how many of these highly regarded intellects have attempted to blog or use web 2.0 tools. Maybe they hope its a fad that will fade away to preserve their intellectual status. But it doesn't take a genius to understand that 2 or 2 billion minds are better than one.
ReplyDeleteOdd. If it the internet did not exist I would not have been forced to read this gentleman's dumb argument promoting his book. Maybe the internet is making me dumber.
ReplyDeleteGood of you to ask what blogs critics are ready. According to Murphy's Law, 90% of everything is crud. Stupidity did not arrive with the internet, lots of bestselling books are tragic wastes of trees.
ReplyDeleteI will give the critics this, however: there is something to be said for peer review. While it is good that a patient can research symptoms before visiting a doctor, I wouldn't trust a doctor who learned everything from Wikipedia alone.
Information democracy. I love it. No one source should be trusted absolutly, and no one is arguing that blogs and google can replace traditional sources of information. But the combination of the two is powerful, as seen in the example of your friend with the stomache pain.
ReplyDelete