Is the Internet Closing Minds?

A recent NPR podcast asked people to debate the question, "Is The Internet Closing Our Minds Politically?". It was fascinating, mostly because there were some very different beliefs about information behavior online. The basis was whether or not "we [are] running the risk of getting trapped in information bubbles, where all we read and see falls in line with our political views?"

And while I find both sides have some interesting points, it it worth examining some of the information behavior and access assumptions underlying the two arguments. I understand that I am part of an elite minority with my education and background, but I don't think it is elitist view to say that I don't believe everyone has equal access to information nor equal knowledge about how to seek out information. Perhaps having a degree in information management makes me biased about information behavior, but the internet for many people has certainly changed the dissemination and acquisition of information. The saying "If its on the Internet, it must be true" is usually said sarcastically, but too often it is a key part of decision making. People find information from a source, and based on prior experience, biases and beliefs (or what is said in social circles), the source is given more or less validity. People decide "oh, I know this source is trustworthy" or "oh, this source is a joke". And the more they trust the source, the easier it becomes to assume the source has verified its information (which in an ideal world would be what all news agencies do).

One key thing that I value about being a researcher in a business environment is that it is really, really important that I understand my information sources. While doing economic or industry research, most of the time there are conflicting sources for data I need, whether its employment numbers in a state or the number of operations in a certain industry. If I find a secondary source that analyses primary data, I need to know what data they were including and how they crunched those numbers. I have seen it bleed into other areas of my life, making me all the more curious about where people get their information and what assumptions are based upon.

When sites on the internet such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter engage is social filtering behavior (tailoring search results to each user), that can change what information we are exposed to when we search online. The argument was made that this can be beneficial - crowdsourcing results through your social circle might expose you to new ideas. But is that really the case? Do many people actually surround their digital selves with people who have opposing viewpoints? Isn't one of the more powerful parts of online interactions is that people with similar outlooks and beliefs can more easily congregate, regardless of where they are in the physical world? I'm not sure people need help seeking out others who view the world like they do.

People need help finding information that expands their knowledge, not constrains or limits it. And that is a lot harder to do than filter out and customize results.

The End of Google Wave

A recent article by Maggie Shiels, a Technology reporter for the BBC News, proclaimed the news that "Google drops Wave because of lack of users". Reading through this, it seems a little strange to me. But it seems as if that because "Wave has not seen the adoption we would have liked", says Google, they are going to phase out the site and integrate some of the developed technology into other Google projects.

Honestly, giving up on Wave seems premature to me. I have been able to use Wave for a few different classes, both for note taking and project managing, and it has been a very interesting tool. Yes, I agree with the assessment that for it to be successful, many people need to be signed up and using it. I think pushing it within both corporate and education environments should have really taken it off. Wave has this awesome real-time communication and collaboration aspect, and it does it all within a browser. It has character-by-character live typing, and the ability to drag-and-drop files from the desktop, even “playback” the history of changes that users have made. It integrated other forms of communication and I'm really disappointed that Google is giving up on it. Perhaps it is because users required invitations, but that doesn't seem to be the case - I still have a good number of invitations that are sitting unused in my account.

I think this is indicative of the core problem with many information technology initiatives. This great technology exists, but people lack either the incentive or knowledge for how to use it to its fullest potential. So I don't think that the retirement of Wave is a technology failure, but an information one. If Google is going to "create innovations with the potential to advance technology" they're going to have to innovate better user communication and education along the way.

***

On a side note, I've been thinking about something recently. I don't read the news as much as I'd like to these days. During my undergraduate studies, I read the New York Times every morning, took the copy with me throughout the day because I would likely reference it at least once either in a class or in conversation. For the most part I focused on political and international news, and "digested" almost all the news articles through that lens.

Today, the way I get news it quite a bit different. I skim the international BBC headlines online when I get into work, briefly scan through my Twitter feed for local and technical news, and during my lunch break I'll dive deeper into a handful of stories that catch my eye. These articles are almost always technology or information related, which makes sense considering my program. Seems to be the story of grad school so far - all this information I want to process and not enough time to do it.