[p2p-research] [OK] Why you never see people complaining about "knowledge overload"...

Sun Jan 24 02:16:32 CET 2010

Sam,

This is an interesting post - finally had the time to properly read and
reflect. Interestingly, this chap argues that blogging is dying:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/24/charles-arthur-blogging-twitter?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Quite possibly for the reasons that you suggest.

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I also think that eventually Twitter
volumes will peak and subside. Twittering, quite frankly, does not add as
much value as it is perceived to add in my opinion. I also believe that
Twitter 'influence' is overrated. People become visible in 'Twitter
space'... but so what. Its value moving forward will revolve around its real
time capacity to enable people to be on the pulse, so to speak. I don't
however, believe that everyone will start Twittering furiously.

*It's great that you raise the issue of the function of information.*

That you say the following is great, and is closely aligned with the OK
philosophy because, in my view, you proposing a *relational paradigm*.

This means that you could make one “post” to the internet in your
entire life, that synthesizies valuable information into actual
knowledge, and that it could then exist as a re-usable knowledge
resource towards theory building and actual problem solving for years
to come. This ONE “post” existing as information digested, understood,
and synthesized into knowledge, could be more valuable than all of the
information-relaying blog posts that you make in your entire life.

You are asking us to consider the value of what we create and how it fits
into a larger picture. The Ecosystem view and the associated mapping process
views the world the same way; *as a set of relations. *

We are starting with the view that we are connected to each other and asking
people to reflect on the nature of those relationships. We believe that in
starting to think of our personal projects as necessarily interdependent
with others, that we can be more effective in advancing our own projects.

Suresh

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:

> This post is not just about “quantity does not equal quality”. This is
> about volume of information and how it can affect decision quality.
> It’s also about a more scaleable and sustainable ecology and economy
> for your activities online.
>
> The technology of the weblog (and more recently the microblog) have
> led to the emergence of an *unsustainable* set of media ecology
> approaches. Your ability to track, read, digest and understand blog
> posts cannot match the exponential volume of blogs emerging on the
> internet every day (even just in the subject areas that you are
> interested in). The paradox is that the perceived model for “success”
> in blogging, online community building, and representing projects and
> businesses online is to “blog frequently”. The idea is that you become
> an “information source” about particular topics. This is fine if you
> have a strategy for being a frequent source of information. However,
> if your intent is to be a source of re-usable knowledge, then focusing
> on frequency of posting, and statistics of people looking at your web
> or blogsite could become difficult to sustain.
>
> The purpose of this blog post is to argue that blogging frequently is
> *not* as important as quality of what you write about, if you seek to
> be a re-usable knowledge source. A second purpose is to argue that if
> your success in the digital medium hinges on the fleeting attention,
> focus and choice of other people using the internet, then you are
> likely using an unscalable and non-sustainable model for success.
>
> What really makes this approach unscalable, and unsustainable?
>
> The two factors:
>
> 1. Volume thresholds
>
> 2. Nature of information, and knowledge in networks
>
> Volume of information affects decision quality
>
>
> http://holocene.cc/card_images/0000/0062/Normal_Distribution_CDF_Diagram_large.png
>
> (adapted from Morville, P. Ambient Findability: What We Find Changes
> Who We Become. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. p.165, in turn adapted from
> The Paradox of Choice: Why Less is More, Barry Schwartz, Ecco, 2005,
> p.3)
>
> There is a threshold after which the decision-making quality of people
> begins to *decrease*, as the *quantity* of information *increases*.
> This means that your reader’s ability to derive value from what you
> are publishing will tend to decrease after a certain point. Finding
> this threshold is a key component in successfully participating in
> networked ecologies. The amount of people looking at your website, or
> even linking to your website, are no longer as important as the amount
> of people successfully synthesizing what you are sharing with what
> they are making, sharing and using.
>
> The nature of information, and knowledge in networks
>
> *Data and information* in networks tends to travel and replicate
> exponentially. Knowledge in networks requires transformation to travel
> and replicate. Knowledge, as it transforms, molds itself to the
> world-view and patterns of understanding of the people who synthesize
> it from their perceptions and understanding of the systems they exist
> in.
>
> So, what does this mean for you?
>
> There can only be so many widely-followed sources of information. If
> you seek to be an information source, you are competing in the ecology
> that was described by Clay Shirky in Power Laws, Weblogs, and
> Inequality  http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html You
> are fighting to be one of the 20% of the population that holds 80% of
> the wealth of the ecosystem, if you desire to be an information source
> in a freedom of choice ecology/economy.
>
> A more sustainable approach for digesting, understanding, and sharing
> for the 80% of people who will not be one of the widely-followed
> blogs, is to do it in a form that others can digest, understand, and
> share.
>
> This means that you could make one “post” to the internet in your
> entire life, that synthesizies valuable information into actual
> knowledge, and that it could then exist as a re-usable knowledge
> resource towards theory building and actual problem solving for years
> to come. This ONE “post” existing as information digested, understood,
> and synthesized into knowledge, could be more valuable than all of the
> information-relaying blog posts that you make in your entire life.
>
> Richard Adler, Paul B. Hartzog, and Sam Rose comprise Forward
> Foundation. We are new type of think tank that combines the designing,
> making, and exchanging of technology with embedding literacies about
> how to use emerging technologies and processes sucessfully.
>
>
> --
> --
> Sam Rose
> Social Synergy
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> http://socialsynergyweb.com
> http://forwardfound.org
> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
> http://socialmediaclassroom.com
> http://localfoodsystems.org
> http://notanemployee.net
> http://communitywiki.org
>
> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
> ambition." - Carl Sagan
>
> --
> This is a message from the OpenKollab Google Group located at
> http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab?hl=en
> To post to this group, send email to openkollab at googlegroups.com

-- 
Suresh Fernando
WEBSITE: http://radical-inclusion.com
WEBSITE: http://openkollab.com
FAN PAGE: http://www.facebook.com/openkollab.
BLOG: http://sureshfernando.wordpress.com
TWITTER: http://twitter.com/sureshf
FACEBOOK: facebook.com/suresh.fernando
604-889-8167
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100123/d80d6493/attachment.html>