An Either Or Web
One of the things I am constantly struck by is the tendency we all have to divide everything into a black and white polarity. Many things resist, yet we determinedly jam them in there anyway. Every issue and every position must have two sides and no more, preferably a right one and a wrong one.
I am either a capitalist or a socialist. Pro or anti whatever. Friend or enemy. Honest or dishonest. Loyal or a traitor. A success or a failure. Is this really how life works? Do honest people, for example, always speak the full unvarnished truth? Never hold back? Even out of simple courtesy or compassion or self preservation? Does an honest loyal friend offer anyone and everyone the same level of these qualities?
Human relationships and interactions are, in fact, very complex things. Rich and multi-faceted things filled with nuance and diversity.
By defining most of our ventures and activities here as two dimensional, we are doing ourselves a disservice and bypassing opportunity.
If we are really to build a community and relationship and reputation based web, then the multi-faceted nature of human relationships must necessarily be reflected in it. That means acknowledging many different levels of contribution and involvement. It also means acknowledging one another as individuals and taking personal responsibility for our words and actions.
We are increasingly focusing on trust, reputation, and expertise or specialized knowledge, and I believe that this is a good thing. I also believe that we cannot begin to see large numbers of people establish and share these things over the internet while remaining anonymous.
Personal recommendation networks continue springing up all over the web, using the trust and reputation catchwords. On almost every one I’ve seen, most or all members use handles or nicknames. Over the years, I have developed non-commercial relationships with people solely over the internet, from whom I would seek advice or a recommendation, but I have yet to achieve that level of trust with an anonymous user.
The same applies to anonymous information. Recent reading on Wikipedia vs Citizendium, including this post by Clay Shirky, discusses the potential, problems, and value of each. Both are encyclopedias, a form which traditionally aggregates information without specific credit to the many authors. Citizendium, a planned fork of Wikipedia, intends to address the weaknesses and failings of compilation through open contribution, by limiting contributors to vetted and credentialed experts.
The one thing that I haven’t read of, and if I’ve simply missed it please let me know, is discussion or creation of a large open community encyclopedia where contributors are not anonymous. In the physical world, we listen, read and learn from others, and assess the value of that information regularly based on the background knowledge and reputation of the source. Rarely are we given this opportunity on the web, except with formal publications offered for sale. I believe that there is indeed a wealth of real and valuable knowledge to be contributed by the many, rather than only the elite. Identified contribution to our communities and common benefit would, in my opinion, take us a long way towards the full trust and reputation based web we wish for.
I am seeing Citizendium and Wikipedia as another form of ‘either or’. We shall read in the first only the words of credentialed experts, and in the second the words of any and all contributors. As a reader, there are occasions where I would choose to seek out only the writings of experts on a certain topic, and, if Citizendium is successful, it will fill that need. If, however, I was only interested in the writings of experts, I should be doing far less reading on the web in general, and would never have discovered the wonderful kaleidoscope of experience, thought and opinion that is emerging here.
