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.
