Weinberger is making the argument that classification and organizational systems are what give people access to data. And without these systems--which humans have been searching for ever since there was data to be mined, sorted, and utilized--all we have is information that is otherwise inaccessible. So in essence the basis of all information is how it is available to be accessed? Right?
This is of course why there's a necessity for tagging, data and metadata. I'd never thought of this as a crucial aspect of the internet. However, I'm not sure I understand his concept that information should be as miscellaneous as possible for it to be accessible. Is this the idea behind tagging?
I think this ties into another point I can't stop thinking about. That sorting is a way to bypass the regulators of the digital world. If accessibility is the key to information--what is information if it isn't accessible?--then it is central to democratized societies. This seems to build on Horace Mann's famoust quote: "Education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery."
But the technology exists to regulate the web. For example, the NY Times will not longer allow unlimited access to its databases. (Its historical index is only available to subscribers.) And while more content is being made available to us to read (Hello Google READER!) How will we know if content is reliable?
Following this train of thought, I can imagine a world where information becomes irrelevant: to those who can afford subscriptions, high speed internet devices, and those who know how to consume all of this information.
The poor and disenfranchised will still be poor and disenfranchised.
The format works very well for me. I did not struggle to watch the ten minutes. And so it doesn't sound like a suck-up to your charisma, I can watch other people talk for more than ten minutes too. I agree with your assessment that some variation from the steady cam could be effective as well. Is there an easy way to make the still image of you with your eyes open?
In terms of the content of your remarks, I especially like the examples of how we define such notions as "recession" and "marriage" (the latter in particular) may be different from a more webby perspective than the traditional, limiting tree-based way of categorizing and labeling. I'm paraphrasing here--I don't think you said "webby." These kinds of examples (and the Jim Crow era discussion) are much more compelling to me than how Staples arranges its pencils or how IBM locates consultants more effectively. I'm fine with the business stuff in Weinberger, by the way, but I think his work could have more explicitly explored gravitas (based on what I've read).
Weinberger is making the argument that classification and organizational systems are what give people access to data. And without these systems--which humans have been searching for ever since there was data to be mined, sorted, and utilized--all we have is information that is otherwise inaccessible. So in essence the basis of all information is how it is available to be accessed? Right?
ReplyDeleteThis is of course why there's a necessity for tagging, data and metadata. I'd never thought of this as a crucial aspect of the internet. However, I'm not sure I understand his concept that information should be as miscellaneous as possible for it to be accessible. Is this the idea behind tagging?
I think this ties into another point I can't stop thinking about. That sorting is a way to bypass the regulators of the digital world. If accessibility is the key to information--what is information if it isn't accessible?--then it is central to democratized societies. This seems to build on Horace Mann's famoust quote: "Education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery."
But the technology exists to regulate the web. For example, the NY Times will not longer allow unlimited access to its databases. (Its historical index is only available to subscribers.) And while more content is being made available to us to read (Hello Google READER!) How will we know if content is reliable?
Following this train of thought, I can imagine a world where information becomes irrelevant: to those who can afford subscriptions, high speed internet devices, and those who know how to consume all of this information.
The poor and disenfranchised will still be poor and disenfranchised.
The format works very well for me. I did not struggle to watch the ten minutes. And so it doesn't sound like a suck-up to your charisma, I can watch other people talk for more than ten minutes too. I agree with your assessment that some variation from the steady cam could be effective as well. Is there an easy way to make the still image of you with your eyes open?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the content of your remarks, I especially like the examples of how we define such notions as "recession" and "marriage" (the latter in particular) may be different from a more webby perspective than the traditional, limiting tree-based way of categorizing and labeling. I'm paraphrasing here--I don't think you said "webby." These kinds of examples (and the Jim Crow era discussion) are much more compelling to me than how Staples arranges its pencils or how IBM locates consultants more effectively. I'm fine with the business stuff in Weinberger, by the way, but I think his work could have more explicitly explored gravitas (based on what I've read).