Participation Literacy

“Thanks to TV there is a dance fever in the country” was the headline in our local newspaper on a Saturday morning in the beginning of February 2006(Blekinge Läns Tidning, Saturday 2006-02-11, part 1, page 20 f). The article was about the “Swedish” dance show Let’s Dance and how it influenced people over the whole country to take up dancing. In that article there was a section about a dance style called Lindy Hop and in relation to that a fact box with text about the history and nature of Lindy Hop. But what got my attention was the source of that fact box: Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia. How did they dare to publish an article based on facts from an anonymous author? And still, I think that Wikipedia is the best Encyclopedia, without any real competition. The thing is this though:

If I rely on facts in Encyclopedia Britannica and that fact turns out to be wrong, Encyclopedia Britannica is the stupid part since they are the “owner” of the information. If I rely on facts in Wikipedia, and that fact turns out to be wrong, I am the stupid one, since Wikipedia does not take the role of ownership and the author is anonymous. The ownership is moved over to me when I rely on information in Wikipedia, since the information producer is a product of collaboration and a group of people cannot be held responsible. I do not think this is a negative side of Wikipedia, since it forces us to collect more than one source if we need information, which can be viewed as right or wrong. Most information is not about right or wrong though, but the point is rather if the information is packaged in an intelligent way. If this “subjective” package is good enough is decided by a group of people viewed as experts in that particular field. I am, for example, an information professional and academic, and is therefore counted as an expert in my field. My expertise is by no way objective, but grounded on groupthink. The tradition of the group gives the frames for my learning and teaching, and it also functions as a frame for my expertise.

Wikipedia is important and interesting in many respects, not the least because the knowledge speaks for itself. The knowledge in Wikipedia is not framed by expertise. Some of the most influential authors in the Wikipedia world might be someone that would never come near an article in Encyclopedia Britannica. But the articles this person writes might actually be better than those in Encyclopedia Britannica. I do not say Wikipedia is better because the articles are better – because often they are not. Wikipedia is better because of the thought of participation and collaboration and because it contains articles EB would never write. EB and Wikipedia work well together. Together they are a strong knowledge body.

The collective intelligence represented by Wikipedia and the blogosphere has got its share of criticism. One of the critics is Nicholas Carr. He talks about the The Cult of the Amateur and, for example, points out that Wikipedia is not trustworthy because it includes a lot of articles, which are both badly written and are in fact wrong (2005). In addition he presents some striking examples regarding the blogosphere. He describes the blogosphere likes this:

I’m all for blogs and blogging. (I’m writing this, ain’t I?) But I’m not blind to the limitations and the flaws of the blogosphere - its superficiality, its emphasis on opinion over reporting, its echolalia, its tendency to reinforce rather than challenge ideological extremism and segregation. Now, all the same criticisms can (and should) be hurled at segments of the mainstream media.(Carr, 2005)

He is absolutely right. When it comes to the blogosphere, as he calls it, big parts of it fits to his description. The problem is not in the blogosphere itself though, but rather in the big part of the intellectual society, which does not understand and participate in this kind of communication. This direct way of communicating through blogs, podcasts and videocasts is in my meaning perfect for all intellectual communication, and it is hard to understand the walls, which obviously are keeping most of today’s intellectuals out. It is quite safe to say that Carr’s critique of the blogosphere might be moved to several parts of the intellectual community (i.e. people who express themselves in public).

Carr’s comments about Wikipedia are also right; many articles are badly written and incorrect. The point though, is that these negative aspects are integrated in the Wikipedia system, and have to be balanced against the positive aspects. The world is becoming immensely complex and we cannot hope to have control over information and knowledge in the same way as before. We have to learn to live in this world. People have to learn not to invest their trust so easily. We at the top of the learning system should communicate in a way that is sensitive to given information and knowledge, and instead rely more on the ability to take and produce knowledge. I also think this relation to information and knowledge is one of the main ingredients of the Web society and it will be more and more important in the future development of the Web.

Intelligence 2.0 is hybrid intelligence. First of all this kind of intelligence goes outside the individual and becomes a feature of the collective. This intelligence is integrated in the technology; the better technology, the more intelligent system. When more and more experts – besides computer professionals – take part in the collective intelligence, the CI machines will have an immensely broader and deeper information base to work from and the notion of collective hybrid intelligence will get a profound role in our society.