What’s the Big Idea

6 Comments

1. Philip Gissing
   Posted June 10, 2009 at 7:12 am | Permalink

   The issue of the accuracy of information, whether on the internet or bound between the covers of old-fashioned books, has not really changed. There always was a hierarchy - in the 19th century, for example, the first editors of compendious encyclopaedias like Britannica and the Metropolitana commissioned acknowledged experts, often members of institutions like the Royal Society or holders of prestigious government scientific posts, to write the articles. Even these experts, though, asserted as fact things which today we regard as absolute nonsense, such as that light waves are transmitted through a luminiferous ether. I think an historical perspective is essential to make sense of a phenomenon like Wikipedia, which in its own way is like a compendium of the special interest press which, once again, emerged in the late 18th and 19th centuries. I’ve already written too much, but would be happy to explore these ideas in dialogue.

2. 1EO+06
   Posted June 10, 2009 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

   Perhaps there has always been a degree of vested interest in the sharing of knowledge but with a population apparently content to source their information from within the first 6 listings of a google search result, almost all of that information is being produced by commercial entities that have bid strongly in their google Adwords campaigns.

   So, I have to ask, is the great change in information sharing moving us towards a freeing or a controlling of knowledge?

   I think too that the correlation drawn between knowledge and intelligence might not be justified, particularly when so much of the ‘knowledge’ is becoming increasingly opinion-based.

   The internet as a tool for knowledge sharing has a habit of distracting us from our original question. How often does our original search find us tracking along enticing links to areas completely unrelated to our goal? This might not be a bad thing you say. However, how do we move forward if we are constantly tempted sideways? Are we to join Alice on her trip down the rabbit hole?

   Curiouser and curiouser!

3. David Gosden
   Posted June 10, 2009 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

   Mark made many interesting points about how the internet is changing the ways people interact with eachother.

   The issue of accuracy is one that concerns many people. I agree with Phil that ever since humans began sharing knowledge this has been an issue. In a sense we are returning to the days before writing when we would have interactive exchanges with, as Mark suggested, up to about 150 prople. If we didn’t agree with what somebody said, it could be challenged immediately. The printing press eliminated this interactivity to a large extent making the information flow one way and allowing vested interests to place ideas on the printed page, largely unchallenged. The internet has restored interactivity making it much easier to challenge incorrect or inappropriate presentations.

   I am a frequent user of Wikipedia and am continually impressed by its accuracy in fields in which I have experience. The fact that any entry can be challenged immediately provides a strong feedback mechanism towards higher accuracy.

   One issue that I don’t recall arising in Mark’s talk was the behaviour of search engines, Google in particular, in referring an inquiry to selected sites. How is the ranking set? I thought I’d do a bit of research into this and turned up several sites that discuss Google’s PageRank system. One such site worth looking at is http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html. I’ll keep researching.

4. kevin
   Posted June 16, 2009 at 12:10 am | Permalink

   very impressed nick with the big idea and the organisation. i knew people in bundeena were an interesting bunch. mark’s talk was very enjoyable. the discussion afterwards could have gone on for a long time. clearly there were some people in the audience that didn’t quite get IT. hope to see more big idea’s and of course more socials in the area …

5. Nick Galvin
   Posted June 16, 2009 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

   Glad you enjoyed it Kevin. I was particularly thrilled by the genuine excitement generated by Mark’s ideas. He really got people thinking!
   Certainly the discussion could have gone on longer and that’s something we will take on board next time. It’s tough on the speaker to answer questions for, say 40 minutes, after presenting but maybe we could take questions then have a discussion through the chair and give our speaker a chance to rest!
   Any thoughts on how to do things in future and who to invite are most definitely welcome.
   And don’t forget to put November 10 in your diary for Fred Watson!

6. 1EO+06
   Posted June 19, 2009 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

   Discussion could indeed have gone on, and on, and on.
   One interesting suggestion I heard was to have the speaker first and then the audience could continue the discussion at their tables over dinner.

   Echoing Kevin’s comments re the organisation. Awsome effort, and almost just as impressive the number of Bundeena and Maianbar people who were there. I think there’ll be a rush on next time tickets are released.