Where do we go from here? Cognitive surplus,and changing the world

One of the most intriguing TED talks I watched some time ago was about cognitive surplus. It really changed how I view many things. When reflecting on all what I learned in this class, it came to my mind and I looked it up to find out that it was no other than Shirky himself who wrote Here Comes Everybody.

http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cognitive_surplus_will_change_the_world.html

The concept is simple yet can truly change the world and make it a better place for everyone. I recall the number of cognitive surplus hours estimated to be around 1 trillion or so per year. If we all somehow aggregated this and mobilized it to serve mutually beneficial projects for all of humanity, we will all be better off, everyone of us. This class profoundly changed my views on many things, but this idea stands out for me. I think that most religions, philosophies, political and social movements that I can think of had such component in their agenda. Because they knew its intrinsic power. The only difference is that many times it was left in the abstract with no tangible way of taking action. But know we have it, technology. In addition to my idealistic dreaming of solving the UN Millennium’s goals which might be assisted by aggregating both the gaps in the current implementations and potential customized solution, there are more practical applications.

A concept I came across in one of my classes and I think ties well to this is “Games with a purpose.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_with_a_purpose

I think it's just fascinating on many levels. It’s aggregating usually “wasted” time and channeling it to solve problems that technology can't,leaving the burden on humans. One of the better known examples is Foldit http://fold.it/portal/ In which we play to solve puzzles about how proteins came to take their current shapes. This has numerous potential medical and therapeutic applications due to understanding the protein’s structure.

Another similar one is Phylo in which you play to try and decode genetic diseases.

This is all while we are technically still playing a game which makes it a great concept in my opinion.

In a world where recourses are getting scarcer and our problems larger and more complex, leveraging cheap technology to aggregate the cognitive surplus of the world will soon be inevitable. It can help us with medical access for sub-Saharan African countries who have more native doctors in Chicago than in their countries. It can help us in solvingn poverty and hunger. Combining micro finance with online networks was such a great way, but much more is needed. If I exagurate enough, the solution to all our problems are within our hands, we just need to find which exact hands.

In a truly globalized, connected and small world, aggregating knwoeldge has never been easier nor more important. I'll make sure to carry this knowledge along with all other ideas I took from this class to make myself a better person, and then maybe do something more...

So is it all just biology? Our Social networks and underlying neural mechanisms

When I hear about empirical social and psychological studies, I always like to think that it has a neural implication. It allows me to think that human can at some level of research by truly understood, but of coruse we all know that’s not possible. Last semester I got involved in a field called neuroeconomics. It combines the main theories of decision making in psychology and economics with neuroimaging to hopefully make sense of what we do. There is some progress albeit quite slow, especially about decisions pertaining to risk and uncertainty, but I think we are finally in the right direction. We need to "aggregate our fields of knowledge." Please see my wiki article (yep.. doing my aggregation part!) .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroeconomics

Throughout this semester, the amazing blend of social and psychological theory kept me always wondering and reexamining the nature of my reality (networks, homophily, diversity, contagion, small worlds, weak ties, polarization, cascades, collective aggregation,..). But more importantly, my second question was, as always, is there a biological basis for this. There is actually research ongoing right here at NU trying to ask this very question. The results were published in Nature Neuroscience.

http://www.northeastern.edu/news/stories/2011/01/social_brain.html.

I also later found it published in my favorite psychology today.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/choke/201102/when-it-comes-our-social-networks-brain-size-matters

The basic finding is that the volume of a brain structure called the amygdala was found to be correlated with the size of one’s social network . It was known that primates who live in larger social groups have larger amygdalas, and now this has been confirmed in humans.

They gathered the network data similar to many studies we read in class, by asking particiapnts about their contacts, how strong they are and to what groups they belong. They found the same results even after controlling for brain and body size. Of course this brings the question of causation. Is it the amygdala that is causing the large social network, or is it the later enlarging the amygdala?

I like how this ties to what Christakis proposed at the beginning of his book, and how our location in the network affects us, but we also affect our network.

I wonder if we can answer many of the intriguing concepts in this course with similar studies.

-Why do some people have more weak ties than others?

-are some people more prone to social cascades?

-can certain groups be genetically inclined to polarization

-Why do some ideas/behaviors diffuse through networks while others don’t?

There might already be answers out there for these that I’m not aware of, and there is always the possibility that some things just can’t put be tested in a lab, and so we might never know the causality. In either case, it keeps me wondering, and I enjoy that!

Parting Thoughts

In the last four months, I have learned more about networks than I have the last four years that I have been on Facebook. Studying networks that existed before the internet existed was especially eye-opening. I always thought that networks begun with sites like Myspace, but people before the internet used more manual methods of viewing network connections, and some of the network graphs that were made pre-internet are astounding to look at.

I really like that we had the freedom to research and write about whatever we wanted to. I was able to learn a lot more about topics which I'm passionate about. This class gave students the opportunity to interpret its content in their own ways, while discussing their views amongst others. One of my favorite topics we learned about was Swarm Theory. We learned that a seemingly unintelligent individual, when grouped with a swarm of others, can collectively combine their knowledge to optimize their ordinary tasks. With this mindset, ants were able to solve the Towers of Hanoi and bees could solve the Travelling Salesman problem.

I have learned to incorporate the knowledge from this class into my daily life. For example, I use Swarm Theory to better understand how members of websites think together, I use open sourcing, like Wikipedia, to better understand how Linux and Android work, and I use contagion to think about why so many people smoke and drink at Northeastern and why it spreads. This class has given me a new perspective on life by changing how I view the world.

My Thoughts on Procrastination

I have had problems with procrastination nearly all of my life. I often save work to the last minute not only because I would rather not do it, but mostly because I am much more motivated to complete tasks as the due date approaches closer and because my focus is higher, allowing me to generally complete work much faster if I'm working closer to a deadline. As the internet skyrockets in popularity, more and more people are finding new and improved distractions rather than completing work in a timely fashion. Therefore, in an effort to reduce procrastination, I offer two general suggestions to students and professors:

1: Assign more regular due dates for assignments. I feel that if work was assigned in smaller, more regular chunks, overall procrastination will decline. I believe that students would be less inclined to waste time on smaller assignments since they know that they will be able to finish faster than a larger assignment. For example, rather than having weekly homework over the week's lessons, teachers could assign problems each class period only on the day's lessons. From experience, I would much rather do three Thermodynamics problems a night, knowing there are only three left, rather than do nine problems on Sunday night.

2: Assign more group assignments and encourage students to work in groups whenever possible. I am much less inclined to waste time in a group scenario, especially when group members are relying on you to finish your section in time. I had a situation earlier in the semester where one of my Material Science lab group members did not complete his section of the lab until 10 P.M. the day before it was due, and since it was my job to compile and format all of the sections as well as write the abstract, I could not start my task without his work. On a normal assignment, working only with myself, I typically am not worried if I don't start until 10 P.M., but in a group situation, there is a certain stigma that appears if you let your team members down, as you have a group reputation to hold. While working in groups, I have seen that members are typically more encouraged to finish faster than if they had to work alone.

If due dates were assigned more regularly and group projects occurred more often, then I believe that students would tend to procrastinate less.

General Thoughts

At the end of our class on Wednesday, we went around the room and all shared one thing that we have learned from this class. There were a variety of different answers and it seemed as if almost everyone had something unique they were going to take from the class. The varied answers that were given by the class led me to start to think about the many different fields of study that correspond to some of the themes of the class. When looking back at my notes and the syllabus with all of the different readings, it became clear that the things I learned from this class can be applied to everything. Knowing specific network effects makes someone think more about their connections and how they will connect with the others around them. Since the start of this class I have found myself to think more about the possible effect of making a connection with a certain person or group. It is not something to obsess over, but it can certainly be helpful to think about.

The themes of this class can also be applied to any field of study. Knowledge on networks can be relevant in business, engineering, healthcare, politics, and many other areas. This was reflected in our syllabus as we had readings from a variety of different fields. When I first signed up for the class I didn’t expect to be reading a book about bees, but I found the book to be both interesting and useful. I think the interdisciplinary aspect of the class and network study in general is very beneficial. No matter what job I have, I feel I will be able to apply the themes of this class in some way. Having said that, I think society could benefit if more people had a basic understanding of networks. For example, politics on every level could be more efficient and balanced if more people understood some of the themes of the class. People could also be mentally and physically healthier if they knew the effect that people in their network had on them.

An information cascade in real life

I was standing in line for a concert over the weekend. Due to the physical limitations of the area, the line was entirely on the opposite side of the street from the venue, and a little further down the block. A group of people came running from somewhere near the end of the line (which most people couldn't see from where they were, and which no one was really paying attention to, heading directly toward the venue. Everyone in line immediately wanted to know what was happening and whether these people were disobeying the social norms of the line and trying to gain some kind of advantage.

While waiting in line for concerts, many people are with friends already, or they form temporary friendships to pass the time. As a result, the overall order of the line was maintained even though many people also ran toward the venue to investigate - only one person from each group needed to go.

The incident turned out to have absolutely nothing to do with the order of the line, but instead with its length (an abutting property owner took exception to our presence on "their" sidewalk), and the people from the rear of the line resumed their original place as soon as they received guidance from venue staff. But without the social bonds formed in the context of the long wait before the concert (through which groups could send one representative to figure out what had happened while the rest stayed in place and allowed the scout to return to her previous position), the entire line could have been destabilized.

Thoughts on Homophily

I believe that the idea of homophily was one of the most interesting ideas studied in this class. When we were first learning about it, I thought that homophily would be something that impedes diversity. I have come to realize that while it can separate networks into segments of like-minded people, thus making close networks less diverse, it also can be used as a tool to learn new things and broaden interests and viewpoints. For example, lets say a friend of mine and I both really enjoy reading science fiction books. If he recommends something from a different genre, lets say a memoir, I would be much more likely to read it than if someone who doesn’t share my immediate interests recommends it to me. Another example comes from my own experience. I used to dislike rap and hip-hop a lot in high school; I listened to mostly rock, and then some electronic music as well. When I got to college and found friends who listened to similar things, one of them introduced me to some hip-hop artists that he really enjoyed. I ended up really liking it, and I don’t think that I would have listened to it with as open of a mind had it been recommended by someone who listens solely to hip-hop. Since then, my music tastes have been expanded greatly by my friends around me whose tastes I can trust. Similarly, with politics, I tend to associate with left-leaning people. If one of my friends started arguing against some policy that Obama had enacted, I most likely be more open to it and listen more closely than if someone who is right-leaning brought it up. This idea may not be optimal, but it is the way the human brain works. Therefore, homophily should not only been seen as something that segments networks, but also as a catalyst for expanding interests and ideas across similar people.

Rating Systems

We recently were discussing rating systems in class, and attempted to determine how useful these rating systems are as informational tools for consumers. Examples of these rating systems include Amazon, Yelp, Trip Advisor, and many others. These rating systems can be very effective if they have enough reviews to analyze the product with. However, there are some flaws that lie in these systems which stem from anyone, including the owner of the product/service, being able to make reviews, as well as people purposefully trying to mess with the data.

I was recently in the market for headphones, and these rating systems were the most useful tool imaginable when deciding on what I wanted to purchase. Amazon had over 50 to 100 reviews of every headphone I was researching, so I was assured that I could take useful advice from them. Two headphones that had similar 4 star ratings were the Beats by Dre Tour Earbuds and the Etymotic HF5s. Both of the headphones had overwhelmingly positive reviews saying that the sound was amazing and they noise canceling made it seem like you’re in your own world. Therefore, I knew that the worst reviews would tell me the most useful information. Comparing the bad reviews, both of these headphones, as well as other ones that I also researched, had mostly complaints about them not lasting long, breaking easily, and sound not coming out of one ear. Therefore, I determined that these kind of issues arise with all headphones, and most likely because people do not take good care of their headphones. Other bad reviews about the Beats by Dre headphones said that the bass was too heavy that they overpowered other instruments, whereas the Etymotics didn’t have any complaints outside of them breaking easily. I ended up buying the Etymotics because of this, and they are the best headphones I have ever had, thanks to the rating system.

On the other hand, rating systems can be flawed easily. For example, an HDMI cable was recently released on the Best Buy website which costs $1600. Immediately, internet forum users were alerted to this ridiculous product and overtook the review board. All giving 5 star reviews, the comments were sarcastic with remarks such as, “Wow this cable is the best investment that I have ever made. It is the highest quality HDMI cable out there. It is so good that I hope that one day I can afford a TV to hook it up to.” Best Buy noticed all of these joke reviews, and deleted them shortly after. However, this left only reviews that didn’t seem to be sarcastic. Now the product has many high reviews when obviously no one should be buying a $1600 HDMI cable. This is an instance when the review system is flawed easily. When people use these rating systems, they have the potential to be the most useful tool when deciding what to purchase, but the whole situation (how many reviews, what the reviews say, and the product in general) must be analyzed together in order to not be fooled by possible flaws.

The Importance of Town Hall Meetings

Professor Lazer’s study on online town hall meetings brought forth some very important facts. There is a huge disconnect between politicians and the general public. Most Americans don’t understand the issues or why politicians take certain actions regarding different policies. The task of reading, understanding, and fact checking different topics can prove to be difficult and time consuming. Therefore, many people give up on the effort and blindly form their opinions based on their feelings, which may not be backed by reality. One major consequence of this is that people strongly dislike and distrust those who disagree with them. According to Professor Lazer’s study, town hall meetings can increase approval of the member and his/her position, increase engagement in politics, and increase the probability of voting for that member. All of these points are very important for a working democracy.

I was recently watching an episode of Top Gear, and it proved Lazer’s points perfectly. Top Gear is a British/American car show on BBC America, and is riddled with jokes and silliness. Each episode has a guest whom they interview for 10-15 minutes. However, a recent episode had Lord John Prescott on the show, who is a former Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of the State of the United Kingdom. When he was first introduced, he was booed by at least half of the audience. Throughout the interview, the host was surprisingly grilling him really hard on issues, despite it being a car show. It was amazing how he answered every question with a very understandable answer, which made his decisions very clear. After the show, everyone clapped for him, there was no more booing, and I’m sure everyone in the audience had an “Aha!” moment as to why he made enacted some of the policies that he did. It is amazing how one small interview with a policy-maker can change ones entire views on that person. If we can get more people to be part of these town hall meetings, which is helped greatly by online meetings, then perhaps we can have a more successful democracy.

Open Sourcing and the Freedom of Information

For people that haven't heard of Linux and Unix based operating systems, Wikipedia was a huge eye-opener for people that were unaware of open-source content. Wikipedia was founded under the principle that information should be free, reliable, and easily available to everyone. In Unix operating systems, the core distribution can be easily modified by programmers and redistributed freely. In Wikipedia, anyone who wishes to can add, delete, or modify articles, however many articles are moderated by volunteers, who are responsible for reversing any spam changes or changes that may lead to false information. Academia has constantly berated Wikipedia for being unreliable, but as the number of moderators increases, the quality and reliability of articles increase. As more people begin to trust Wikipedia's accuracy, maybe Academia will begin to trust open-source content such as Wikipedia articles .

One of the most prominent open vs. closed source battles occurring today is the Apple vs. Android argument. Apple chooses to lock down their iOS platform so nothing that Apple directly approves of can be released into the App Store. Android, however, is based on the open-source Linux kernel, so, for the most part, everyone is free to modify their Android devices as they please. Google often encourages third party developers to modify Android devices, who then write custom firmware distributions, known as ROMs, for Android users to install once they gain superuser privileges by rooting. However, within the Android platform, some device manufacturers disagree that users should be able to run custom ROMS, notably Motorola, and they have thus encrypted their phones. After a large and constant outcry from Motorola Android users, Motorola finally reversed their policy on custom firmware. Open source content, when used appropriately, can be hugely beneficial, as the content is often free and users tend to appreciate the freedom given to them.

Extremism in the U.S.

Sunstein’s Going to Extremes was a very interesting book that discussed how like-minded people act in groups. Given the current political climate, it was extremely relevant to what is happening in this country right now. I am a liberal, so my view may be a little biased, but in my opinion, two groups were formed directly from this phenomenon. One is the Tea Partiers, and one is the Westboro Baptist Church. The extremism from the Tea Party is a huge issue because as they converse with “regular” Republicans, they effectively push the views of the Republicans even further right. The implications of this shift were highlighted in a study done by John Avlon of Newsweek magazine. According to the study, 67% of Republicans (40% of America) believe that Obama is a socialist, 45% (25% overall) believe Obama was not born in the U.S., 57% (32% overall) believe he is a Muslim, 24% (14% overall) say that he “may be the Antichrist,” and 38% (20% overall) says “Obama is doing many of the things that Hitler did.” These claims are ridiculous, and take away from the real issues of the country. I think the most ridiculous ones are the ones relating him to the Antichrist and Hitler. One thing that Hitler was known for was his use of propaganda. He knew that if you read something over and over enough times, eventually you will take it as a truth. I can’t think of anything Obama has done that makes him anything like Hitler, but largely extreme Republicans such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh use this type of propaganda to sway the minds of voters. Republicans control 80% of talk radio, and by people listening to all of these ridiculous claims on a regular basis, many are taking them all as fact without looking further into them at all. If this trend of blindly accepting wild claims continues, it good have terrible repercussions for our country.

Rating Systems

In class last week we were asked to bring in one form of rating website, or wikipedia-esque website. The different examples of rating systems brought in were yelp, tripadviser, Hostels, and Netflix just to name a few. These rating systems brought up an interesting conversation centered around who posts reviews on them. It became clear that most people only post a rating review when they are extremely pleased or displeased with some service or place. This leaves the average or mediocre ratings and experiences out. Some students said that they look at the worst and the best ratings to compare what a business might thrive in versus what they lack. Another opinion is that the best rating system is a 1-5 rating or giving it a certain number of stars. This is so that all of the reviews and ratings and be summed up in one overall average that is easy to interpret.

The other issue when it comes to rating systems and websites is finding a real rating. One cannot discount the fact that anyone can post on most of these with very little regulation, if any. An owner of a restaurant could simply go on and post wonderful reviews about themselves, and no one would know. In addition, the opposite scenario could be true. A competitor could easily go on the website and post something negative about their competition. On Amazon, when reviews are done of the books it could quite possibly be the author's friends and collaborators who are the ones posting reviews, which while maybe not intentional could give a bias review. Also frequent reviewers who post long positive reviews with frequency can be sent free early copies of books, or other things giving them incentive to post a positive review. A young artist, Sam Adams, is said to have bought his own music on itunes thousands of times so that his song could be ranked in the top charts. These examples are just a few ways that these systems can be manipulated.

Professor Lazer brought up the way his profession reviews papers. Two people within the profession are carefully chosen to comment and review a paper with end remarks such as revise and edit, or rewrite and revise, etc. The author does not know who the two people are, therefore no one will feel compelled to slant their reviews one way or another to please a collaborator. I think this is one of the few systems that seems like it would be an effective rating and review of someone's work.

The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted, But It Can Help

In his article, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” Malcom Gladwell makes some pretty good points about why the internet and social media do not completely change the game when it comes to activism. One can probably see the issues with a digitally generated protest or sit-in even without Gladwell’s paper.

The reason protests like those that took place in Egypt are so successful is because it is so clear whn a large group of people support it. That is because you can see it. You can see the number of people in the streets and the enthusiasm they show for their cause. By contrast it still seems like any online activism or petition signing doesn’t carry much weight. You may have 1000 people ‘attending’ your event on Facebook, but until they actually show up in person they are uselesss.
The idea of being willing to sacrafice something is what gives these activists and their actions so much power. When you see them take to the streets you know they are willing to put a face to their cause and in some cases suffer some kind of harm whether physical abuse or social stigmatizing. However, simply retweeting a message does not have the same effect.
While a physical presence will always outweigh a digital one when it comes to matters like this, we cannot underestimate the importance of social media tools like Twitter and Facebook. You may need to physically show up to a protest to create change, but that protest can be started online. There are a lot of people out there that are waiting for their “tipping point” when it comes to protests, they want to see others joining in before they do. By starting online, these people can see the growth and strength of the movement before stepping foot outside. From there they must actually take some action to be recognized by the authority they’re trying to reach.
So the internet and social media may help organize activism like that which we saw in the Middle East early this year, but when it comes down to it, a physical presence is needed. Protests can’t take place entirely online with any hope of being effective, but they can start online and the internet can be used to get them started. It’s just the peoples’ job after that to actually show up.

Swarm Theory in Practice

Growing up, I loved playing Towers of Hanoi. I had the game loaded on my TI-83+ in High School and would play it almost every day in my science and math classes, which I excelled in anyway. Once I figured out the puzzle's pattern, I quickly learned and memorized the optimal routes. I then quickly transitioned to blindfolded speed runs! Once you learn the pattern, it is easy to apply it to higher towers, even without looking.

Reading earlier about how a swarm of ants could learn the same pattern and end up only using the optimal path to reach their food source amazed me. Initially, I thought that ants weren't too intelligent, but when a swarm of ants travels through a maze, they somehow relay information to the swarm that a certain path isn't optimal. Bees use the same problem solving approach when searching for food, or solving mathematical equations. When searching for food, swarms of bees actively search for the closest food source and avoid those that are farther away.

These readings partially inspired me to write my third essay on the news aggregator Reddit. Community members actively seek out and upvote the best new posts to be put on the front page, and they downvote those that they dislike or disagree with. This mindset, known as the "hivemind mentality," can be problematic with links in the Politics section of the site, as it has some fairly heavy bias, but the hivemind often works well to promote higher quality links to the site.

Wiki Textbooks?

Infotopia and Here Comes Everybody both discussed Wikipedia as an example of collaborative production of knowledge. I wonder if textbooks could be produced the same way. Jimmy Wales mentioned in his TED talk that we watched that Wikipedia is very cheap to run. Students could certainly benefit from cheaper (or even free!) textbooks. Instead of buying a $120 chemistry book that would be outdated in a couple of years and replaced with a new edition, an online textbook could be constantly updated to reflect current research and would not need to be reprinted each time.

Some measures would need to be taken to ensure academic integrity. Perhaps contributors would need to professors or authors that have published papers in the field. Wikipedia seems to be fairly academically rigorous for many of its articles. I know that I have used Wikipedia to study for tests and to help clarify questions I have about material from some classes, and often the Wikipedia articles are clearer and more detailed than the information in the textbook and than the information presented in class. I would imagine that a wiki textbook would probably be the same way, and with restricted authorship might enjoy a better reputation academically and would be a citable source in a paper.

One requirement discussed of successful collaborative production is that no one unfairly benefits (as with the AOL guides that Shirky discussed). As long as there wasn’t a publisher that was profiting from the online textbooks, I wonder if it would work. Perhaps the hardest part would be getting enough authors. Would enough professors and other knowledgeable and respected people be willing to contribute?

Otherwise, I wonder if Wikipedia is complete enough at this point to be used as a textbook. Instead of assigning readings from a book, I wonder if full classes could be taught from Wikipedia readings instead, or if a student chose to use only Wikipedia and did not buy the assigned book, if their grade would even suffer.

[note: after I posted this I just saw Vin's post from a couple of days ago, and I completely agree. I wonder, could there be some kind of academic audit run on Wikipedia to legitimize it more? Have there been studies done to see if articles on Wikipedia are up to the same standards as textbooks and academic papers?]

Final Reflections

Well in my previous post I said it may or may not be my last one, and the answer turns out to be may not. I'd like to take the opportunity to reflect on the most important thing I've learned in this course that I will be taking away from it: the applications of network science for public health.

As a pharmacy major, I was fascinated to learn how obesity and other health problems (like smoking) can spread through social networks. The Christakis and Fowler paper met a great deal of outcry in the health professions; they couldn't believe that social networks were an important factor in obesity, preferring to link it to simple poor health habits. As a future member of a health profession, I hope to change this mindset. Regardless of how obesity spreads through social networks, health initiatives absolutely have to begin taking network science into account. While network science plays a critical role in the study of epidemics, it still doesn't have the foothold it should in other parts of the health sciences.

Pharmacies, for example, should understand that the communities around them will probably encounter similar health issues at the same time even if those health issues are not necessarily communicable diseases. They should also be wary of prescribing drugs just because other pharmacies in the area have begun doing so because of the probability of informational cascades. This is especially true for hospital pharmacies that often attempt to use the most popular new drugs as long as cost is not a large issue. Network science also reinforces the values of preventative medicine (healthcare) over sick-care. One can spread positive benefits to other members in the network while the other leaves behind possible problems in the population.

And on that note, I finish my final post for the course. I had a fantastic time with it and the class was definitely the academic highlight of my year. Good luck in the future to everyone on this blog!

Wikipedia Should Be Embraced by Academia

I have been using Wikipedia as a research tool for the past several years. It has been a tremendous source of information on a wide range of topics. But it wasn’t until I saw this TED talk, which features founder Jimmy Wales explaining the birth of Wikipedia. He makes a lot of interesting points while describing how this free online encyclopedia came about and continues to improve.

In his talk, Wales talks about the misconception that educators and academics are opposed to the idea of Wikipedia. While he makes a great case defending his creation, I must say that I have not come across too many professors who are in favor of using the site to do research. But should they? A lot of the points Wales makes about Wikipedia should, at the very least, spark a conversation about the viability of Wikipedia as an academic source. After listening to Jimmy Wales explain all the work that goes in creating Wikipedia entries and maintaining quality, I think that they me be just as viable a source as traditional periodicals or references.

Like Jimmy Wales said, the site has more visitors than the New York Times website. At the time of his talk, Wikipedia had over 600,000 articles in English and more than 2 million total. Those numbers are staggering and make Wikipedia a source that really has no competition in terms of the amount of information it holds.

Wikipedia also has the benefit of a diverse group of people continually editing each page. This helps on many different levels. First, it makes more sense to have thousands of people working on an entry than just a few. As we have read, these people working together can hone in on the accurate information better than a small group could. This group effort also helps because the people come from a diverse background. This works as a kind of checks and balances system that may not exist in traditional resources with information being created by less people. These people are also constantly making edits to the entries. This makes the information much more timely than a static entry in an encyclopedia or a news article.

    While many argue that leaving such powers up to individuals can lead to inaccurate information, there are actually policies and procedures in place to ensure that does not happen. The community has people always checking to make sure guidelines are being followed with an emphasis on quality and neutrality.  Wikipedia certainly prides itself on its openness, but like Mr. Wales said, quality is more important than the openness. The members of the community understand that and strive to maintain that across all entries.
    The final point in favor of adopting Wikipedia as a legitimate source for academic reference has to do with its cost to users. That cost, of course, is nothing. As a free tool offering so much information, it is really hard to compare Wikipedia’s value to any other source. So often limits are placed on access to information because there is some kind of pay wall in the way. For Wikipedia, all you need is a computer with an internet connection. This is a huge step towards leveling a playing field that sees students from lower income households at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to education.
    With all this in mind, we should be acknowledging Wikipedia as a great tool for all of us who want to learn more. Instead of ridiculing we should be embracing it as the great information tool of our generation, with people coming together to aggregate information about a wide range of topics and making this information available at no cost.

Facebook and Information Cascades

The class recently read a novel by Clay Shirky titled, Here Comes Everybody. Shirky talks a lot about how technology--the Internet in particular--has helped to mobilize groups more quickly. This mobilization occurs as a result of online information cascades. Information becomes widely dispersed via the Internet and once several people find out about a particular event, many choose to participate.

One venue that has been a prevalent source of information cascades is the social networking site Facebook. Facebook has numerous features that publicize information. The Newsfeed displays members' status updates. The Events page highlights popular upcoming events. Facebook users can also join Groups that cater to specific interests. When these features are not made private, any person logged onto the web site can view the information provided. Certain links then gain great popularity and all Facebook users start to hone in on these links, leading to information cascades.

Over the past year, I have witnessed several Facebook information cascades that led to the mobilization of people. People who are Facebook Fans of the clothing store Gap rushed to the store's Copley location when Gap posted that it was having a "buy one, get one free" sale on jeans. People who "liked" the Facebook link "Free Cone Day" flocked to Ben & Jerry's at the Prudential Center forming a line over 200 people long. People who were invited to the 5-day Rugby Party Facebook Event swarmed the Rugby house, leading to an overcrowded party where many people were denied entry. These are just a few examples of how information cascades on Facebook have quickly mobilized large groups of people.

Between studying for finals and experimenting with cascades

The definition of cascades whether social or informational is that you simply rely on what others think, or in other words you do it because everyone is doing it. Cascades can indeed arise in serious matters like in collective decision making and stock buying. But I think it’s more predominate with trivial issues that require less thinking, or interest to invest time or energy to know more.

Yesterday, like most of this week the library was almost completely packed, but it would soon be more so. It was the 20^th anniversary of Snell library, and they decided to have the event in the lobby of the first floor right next to me. Cramming for a final, I of course decided to leave everything and check it out. It was a weird setting. For the first time as I can remember, they filled the lobby with chairs leaving little room on the sides for students to come and go. There were some empty chairs left at the end. But as bored as I was, I decided I’ll try something since everything looked chaotic as it is. It was next to the computer labs, so I pulled a chair from there and sat. I was the only one not in the crowd and started paying attention. Few minutes later someone passed by, looked at the situation, and then decided to pull a chair next to me. Again there were some seats left, but he decided to pull a chair opposite to the crowd. We ended up being 5 in this position. I left to try standing in a random position behind the crowd. Someone immediately came and stood right next to me to watch. I decided to leave and I thinking feeling alone he soon left. I went to observe from far away for a while and didn’t see anyone standing at all. I came back and stood for a while and soon was joined by another person again. One of my friends stopped to chat, and this attracted 2 more people. I guess this situation and event would make any student in the area curious, but it was trivial enough for them that they didn’t want to exert energy or time to investigate how they can know more and whether is it OK to set down. They saw a student setting on a chair adjacent to the crowd, and figured that’s the right thing to do. When I stood up in random areas, it was these specific areas that attracted people to stand at. Similar thing can be observed in many other occasions where we are curious to know what’s going on but not interested enough to gather and analyze information, so we just follow whoever came before, thus creating a cascade .

In Shirky's "Here Comes Everybody" he discusses how cheap it has become to put information out there. The lines between a blog and a media outlet have been sufficiently blurred. With the ability to put out information with shorter notice, and of lesser cost, it has become harder to regulate collective action. Groups can organize without any organization essentially. If a group widely publicizes a march for days and days in order to reach a large crowd, it can easily be prevented or regulated by the police or government. However, now with the speed information can be spread, marches or rallies can be held last minute, and therefore are less likely to be prevented.

This also emphasizes how the cost of joining groups has decreased. Groups can grow much faster now. An example of this that was discussed is the Voice of the Faithful which kept doubling in size every six months. Its speed of growth was not the only interesting part about this group, it was also extremely spatially diverse. Which in the past, would have been much less likely and near impossible without this cheap, fast technology.

While Shirky makes some good and interesting assertions, I lean more towards Gladwell's views on the subject. The counterargument is that these unorganized internet groups are working by weak ties instead of strong ties, so people are less likely to do costly things. If one merely signs a petition online, or responds to an email, or clicks "join" they are usually much less invested than if one joined in person, or sought out the petition to sign. This decreases the chances that they will show up for a sit in, or a march with people they do not know, for a group they do not feel unified with. This is why I side more with Gladwell's arguments although I am not saying social media can be ignored because it certainly plays a role in publicity.