Wikitruth

For individuals who are familiar with the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, much of this article by Simson L. Garfinkel (not Simon Garfunkel), a professor of computer science at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA, will not be new.

What is interesting about the discussion put forth by Garfinkel is the distinction between truth and verifiability. According to the author, the Wikipedia model supports verifiability through policies that encourage the use of third-party sources rather than self-published original research. Editing your own entry is another act discourgaged in the Wikipedia structure. One example given by Garfinkel is about Jaron Lanier, whose Wikipedia entry stated that he was a film director (he claims he is not). Every time he deleted that statement, it returned. (NOTE: On October 24, 2008, the Wikipedia entry on Lanier did not list him as a film director.) Lanier also was criticized for his self-editing practice, which some consider a "wikisin." One would assume that Lanier would be an "expert" about himself, moreso than others.

While many consider Wikipedia a useful tool, especially when gathering preliminary information about the topic, and is considered a model of the wisdom of crowds concept, the question remains: What is truth? In Wikipedia, according to Garfinkel, truth is "the consensus view of a subject." Given the approach used for more mainstream publications where only a few individuals are involved, the Wikipedia method potentially allows for more input on what counts as complete and accurate information. But do more eyes taint the information or improve it? Who counts as an expert when it comes to a particular topic? What is the difference between expertise and self-promotion/self-marketing? Can information seekers ever expect to find the truth, or is verifiability good enough?

Crowdsourcing on YouTube

Huberman, Romero, and Wu (2008) posit that there is a relationship between productivity and attention. They test their hypothesis by examining more than nine million videos on YouTube. Before describing their research, however, the authors briefly define the terms crowdsourcing and tragedy of the commons. First, crowdsourcing is a term used to describe the ability of individuals to produce and distribute content - videos, photos, writings - without centralized oversight. In other words, the consumers are the producers (sounds like sections straight out of Tapscott & William's book Wikipedia). MIT professor, Eric von Hippel refers to this as "user-centered innovation." "Wisdom of crowds" is the term James Surowiecki uses to describe this concept in his aptly titled book The Wisdom of Crowds. Next, according to Huberman and his colleagues, the tragedy of commons the dilemma that occurs when individuals do not share their original content with others because of the free riders who fail to reciprocate the gesture.

After outlining several statistical analyzes used to determine the connection (or lack thereof) between productivity on YouTube and attention, the authors conclude that crowdsourcing depends on attention. Individuals who receive attention continue to post videos; individuals who do not receive this positive attention discontinue their posting behavior.

The authors make a passing reference to academics and the way in which they publish and present to gain attention. While not mentioning cyberspace celebrities or the celebrity instructor, specifically, this concept is what comes to mind when reading this section. However, work published and presented by the majority of academics is read and cited by very few individuals. Yet, academics continue to publish even without gaining attention. Does the prospect/pressure of achieving tenure outweigh the lack of attention? Is attention from the public merely one factor that plays a role in this equation? While these questions are not addressed by the authors, they could be areas for future research.

On a related note: Jeff Howe, a writer for the magazine Wired, has a new book out titled, Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. While the target market appears to be business executives, the book might be worth at least a skim through.