When the century of plenty was announced, people that understood its meaning thought it applied to everything. Plenty of consumer things. Plenty of money. Plenty of choices.
But the only novelty showing through at the beginning of the tenth year of the century isn't that. It's not about tangible things. The only really new and lasting innovation is content. It doesn't matter whether youtube or facebook has the most users or rakes in revenue or investors. The thing they have in common is not the technology, but what it facilitates.
In the first ten years of the twenty-first century by Western reckoning, more content will have been created by the human race than in all the thousands of years before.
And I'm not talking about written content versus the spoken traditions of old, I'm talking content as a whole. All six Billion of us will have created more content in ten years than all of our ancestors joined together. I'll even bet that before the end of the year, someone will have proven this statistically.
The one thing that has made this possible is, by the way, not the internet, but the free market. This is very meaningful for the age of content because in a world where markets could become less free, content creation could dwindle.
I'll try to elaborate a bit on the last two points, and then conclude as to what it all means.
Many people will observe that without the internet, none of the content that is so freely available would be in our homes and offices. This I won't dispute. But the internet has been around for fifty years, and in the present form since the beginning of the 1990's. But we didn't have computers in the fifties. Many don't today, but with a Billion computers in use in 2007, most humans could get access to one.
But internet access and computers isn't all it takes. It's not about text, anyway. We've been producing written words for centuries, although never on a scale as today. About a hundred million people are creating material in text, video or audio form. Never before in human history has this happened. It relies on digital cameras and mp3 recording devices, available software for editing all that's created and so much more. But none of these techological means by themselves explain the current content revolution.
Foremost, the age of content relies on free markets. It doesn't need democracy although free markets don't work as well without it. It doesn't need actual freedom but people in undemocratic countries find themselves continually in peril of censorship. Most cope pretty well with this, though, usually by remaining unseen by authorities and a form of self-sensorship.
But the one force driving all this content creation is the free market. Most people need the confirmation that somewhere, there is a customer for their product. A reader or listener to what they've created. And this is only possible in a free market form. It is the reason why openly accessible platforms are so popular. If this blog article could only be read by people willing to pay for it, I probably wouldn't be writing it. I'm not implying I wouldn't want to see it published commercially, but it's not the main reason for me writing it.
There has to exist a very large incentive to create for closed platforms and it's usually money or another form of monetary reward. This has existed for a long time and it's still - and rightly so - a very important force in society. Many people would love to be professional writers, but will never make a living from that. And in the age of content, that is absolutely all right.
So my concept of the free content market doesn't rely on money and that is also an important observation. It implies the astonishing height of human development and prosperity. There have always been people who were freely creative, in any community. But never before have they been able to share what they create with so many. It's even become a paradigm in its own right, where teachers encourage their students to create their own interpretation of what they learn and then label it e-learning. The debate on the use of web 2.0 within the educational world has never been more fierce.
So if we accept the fact that we are at a peak; how do we preserve this magnificent human creation abundance? This is a question with many possible answers. The first answer is basic: the infrastructure has to remain freely accessible. Already there are some who deem it desirable to split the different forms of creation. A separate scientific internet, for instance. A secure internet. They are the wrong answers to important questions. I'll not try to answer the questions (How to decide what's scientific debate? and How to make our commercial and societal infrastructure less prone to tampering?) here, but creating closed environments is not the answer, as I've hinted at earlier.
The second answer is one where many fights are fought: what's the boundary between free and protected? The old copyrights debate will go on for a while and it's hard to say how it will turn out, if it ever leads anywhere at all. But because so much is at stake, a solution must aventually be found. I just hope it will not be an exclusive one, but will include us all.
The third answer goes right to the core of the matter, and to the nature of creation. What is human creation and can any value be attributed to it? To the latter the answer of course is yes, but it is related to the former and there is much debate on this. Many blogs are reported to be just comments on very minute bits of information, and these bits of information may have had a limited possible audience to begin with. Many Youtube videos are of questionable value so why would we want to preserve this kind of creation? Why should we even allow it to use bandwidth? Because when I answered affirmatively I never implied what the value of creation should exactly be. Nor who should measure it. Everyone knows the example of artists who became famous after their deaths: how long do we have to preserve everything to make sure we're not casting aside an artwork with future worth potential?
This brings me to the last answer to my question. When the economy turns sour, a lot of content could be lost when companies fail. Do we try to preserve this? Do we let people continue their creation? Will not the free market solve this?
Perhaps, instead of spending so much money on banks and car factories, governments could have set aside a little for the true novelty of our time. If Youtube were to fail, who would save our legacy? How can we be remembered for the future, when there might perhaps not be so many fortunate people creating new things and when they want to read or experience some of the things we've left behind? If anything, we should be thinking about how we'll deal with that legacy. It is a role for librarians, for politicians, for scientists, to acquire new and active ways of indexing and preserving, not by fossilization, but by nurturing the creative processes and outcomes of this age of content.
2 Jan 2009
5 Dec 2008
Educa Online 2008 is over
The bar offered some interesting conversation to conclude another very interesting Educa. I will try to post some more about the things I've seen and learned in the next days and on monday, my teacher meeting will no doubt be very interesting indeed.
Our teachers deserve our support
I saw a good Dutch example of multimedia usage for future teachers. It was a Dutch presentation by Petra Fischer & Els Scheringa from the University of Amsterdam, who did a couple of projects. All of the projects involved collaboration and were quite interesting as well as successful.
The teachers were obiously the right participants for the experiment, as they quickly adopted the methods and techniques. The future projects will also involve measuring if the things they have learnt were actually put to use in the teachers practice.
It is an experience which spurs quite nicely with the one I had in the Toll-shop (a workshop organized by Toll-Net, Techonology enhanced (Ondersteund) Lifelong Learning) about the tools available to e-teachers. I talked to some of the participants quite extensively, and she experienced she would use online tools quite easily once she had gained some experience with e-learning. The usage in actual formal learning, however, depended on her receiving some support from a school facilitator.
So learning the techniques is a very necessary step, but receiving support within the organization is equally important. It is a lesson for all promotors of e-learning, and one which the success stories certainly make clear.
The teachers were obiously the right participants for the experiment, as they quickly adopted the methods and techniques. The future projects will also involve measuring if the things they have learnt were actually put to use in the teachers practice.
It is an experience which spurs quite nicely with the one I had in the Toll-shop (a workshop organized by Toll-Net, Techonology enhanced (Ondersteund) Lifelong Learning) about the tools available to e-teachers. I talked to some of the participants quite extensively, and she experienced she would use online tools quite easily once she had gained some experience with e-learning. The usage in actual formal learning, however, depended on her receiving some support from a school facilitator.
So learning the techniques is a very necessary step, but receiving support within the organization is equally important. It is a lesson for all promotors of e-learning, and one which the success stories certainly make clear.
Training teachers: a possible answer
Motivating teachers into technology supported learning is one of the bottlenecks for successful teaching. So how can we as facilitators get our teachers on top of the technology, instead of avalanched by it?
During the different discussions I have had about this topic, it occured to me that everyone had a specific, usually slightly different approach. So I stepped outside for a while and with the snow falling on my face, I came to the conclusion that this must be the way it must be.
There is no uniform to approach teachers to engage in this activity. Just as there never was a fit-for-all solution in the past, there isn't one now. This was a bit of a bummer because I was looking for easily applicable techniques. Our teachers are in general very professional but in high demand. So a completely customized approach, requiring a lot of time from both facilitator and teacher, will not be easily accepted.
It is, nonetheless, the only possible answer. Clearly, this has always been the case. Every individual prefers one-to-one education. We have been taught in schools that safety is in mass, because you can blend into the crowd. But as individuals, we always prefer as small a group as possible. The teacher only needs to focus on my individual needs, no other disturbances are present. Ask any music student what they prefer, they'll all go for the individual approach.
A way around this impossible - since the approach is not economical for teachers or facilitators - answer is diversity. We can provide tools for teachers so they can pick from the menu the ones they prefer and use those. This can make the experience more personal and rewarding. So the answer to a multitude of possibilities is, in my opinion, a large enough choice to allow each person's preference.
Training teachers will have to leave the classroom, just like teachers themselves will have to get out more. A different challenge, but a more feasible one.
During the different discussions I have had about this topic, it occured to me that everyone had a specific, usually slightly different approach. So I stepped outside for a while and with the snow falling on my face, I came to the conclusion that this must be the way it must be.
There is no uniform to approach teachers to engage in this activity. Just as there never was a fit-for-all solution in the past, there isn't one now. This was a bit of a bummer because I was looking for easily applicable techniques. Our teachers are in general very professional but in high demand. So a completely customized approach, requiring a lot of time from both facilitator and teacher, will not be easily accepted.
It is, nonetheless, the only possible answer. Clearly, this has always been the case. Every individual prefers one-to-one education. We have been taught in schools that safety is in mass, because you can blend into the crowd. But as individuals, we always prefer as small a group as possible. The teacher only needs to focus on my individual needs, no other disturbances are present. Ask any music student what they prefer, they'll all go for the individual approach.
A way around this impossible - since the approach is not economical for teachers or facilitators - answer is diversity. We can provide tools for teachers so they can pick from the menu the ones they prefer and use those. This can make the experience more personal and rewarding. So the answer to a multitude of possibilities is, in my opinion, a large enough choice to allow each person's preference.
Training teachers will have to leave the classroom, just like teachers themselves will have to get out more. A different challenge, but a more feasible one.
The digital divide revisited
One of the questions after the talk on generation Y took on the digital divide. Ton Zijlstra made a good point with which I agree fully. The divide which is now between people connected and those not connected through a computer, will probably shift.
With more devices connecting to the web, people left behind might not be the same as those without internet today. Some people in the middle strata (lower middle and middle middle class) may lose out due to ill-advised scepticism. In many families, connection to the internet is regulated by the parents on time grounds and not necessarily content grounds. In a time when teachers are (re-)learning the value of play in formal education, parents should not limit the access to the net by restricting the time and activities carried out by their children. As a lot of these rules are imposed out of fear for the unknown, educating the parents in these groups could aid the children.
Of course, the lower strata in society will be facing similar challenges. Something they have going for them is the facility with which they adopt mobile technologies. In a mobile network world, this is an advantage these groups may be able to use to their advantage, thereby diminishing the current (but increasingly past) digital divide.
In government, it's obviously important to aid those that run the greatest risk. In future, bridging the digital divide will not become obsolete. Our current - and perhaps not very effective - tactics may be even more misplaced for the future.
With more devices connecting to the web, people left behind might not be the same as those without internet today. Some people in the middle strata (lower middle and middle middle class) may lose out due to ill-advised scepticism. In many families, connection to the internet is regulated by the parents on time grounds and not necessarily content grounds. In a time when teachers are (re-)learning the value of play in formal education, parents should not limit the access to the net by restricting the time and activities carried out by their children. As a lot of these rules are imposed out of fear for the unknown, educating the parents in these groups could aid the children.
Of course, the lower strata in society will be facing similar challenges. Something they have going for them is the facility with which they adopt mobile technologies. In a mobile network world, this is an advantage these groups may be able to use to their advantage, thereby diminishing the current (but increasingly past) digital divide.
In government, it's obviously important to aid those that run the greatest risk. In future, bridging the digital divide will not become obsolete. Our current - and perhaps not very effective - tactics may be even more misplaced for the future.
4 Dec 2008
The answer is not knowledge management
The Norbert Bolz talk was quite enlightening. One of the key concepts I take from it is the knowledge management paradigm. If you think the idea of attention management through to its extremes, the answer to our questions is not knowledge management.
The reason I would like to elaborate on this conceptual problem, is the nature of knowledge itself. If you look at the way knowledge is created, this used to go through a overseeable body of information distribution, mainly governed through, though not by, university staff and its affiliates. This meant that to become knowledgeable about a subject, one had to read through a published aggregate of texts.
To become a true expert in a field, reading wasn't enough, obviously. Discussion, teaching and writing are also useful. But these are activities typically performed within the university context. So to become a scholar was to become an expert. In some fields of expertise, it still is. But these are diminishing in number and the level of expertise to be gained is also dropping.
If we look at knowledge now, this is quite a different beast. The speed with which it is created, is up considerably. The nature is becoming more diverse. How do you grab, fossilize, or control a forum discussion? If there are 15 replies, reading still does the trick. But what if there are 275 replies to a forum topic? Or 275 thousand? What about a chat session where the value of the Q&A can be limited or universally profound? How can we value the knowledge available in our online and offline universe?
So knowledge management, a typical controlled activity, is in a conundrum.
I would love to be able to say or write encouraging remarks such as "technology will save us" or "we'll figure out a way such as we always have" but I think this is the wrong answer to the wrong question.
The question no longer is "How can we manage the available knowledge" but rather "How can we distribute the knowledge to use it collectively?".
The problem we're faced with is no longer management but availability. How do we make knowledge into something that is available to those of us who are looking for insight? And how do we share those insights to make them applicable to others?
I have no answers to these questions, but I'm hoping others will contribute to refine the questions to aid looking for answers.
The reason I would like to elaborate on this conceptual problem, is the nature of knowledge itself. If you look at the way knowledge is created, this used to go through a overseeable body of information distribution, mainly governed through, though not by, university staff and its affiliates. This meant that to become knowledgeable about a subject, one had to read through a published aggregate of texts.
To become a true expert in a field, reading wasn't enough, obviously. Discussion, teaching and writing are also useful. But these are activities typically performed within the university context. So to become a scholar was to become an expert. In some fields of expertise, it still is. But these are diminishing in number and the level of expertise to be gained is also dropping.
If we look at knowledge now, this is quite a different beast. The speed with which it is created, is up considerably. The nature is becoming more diverse. How do you grab, fossilize, or control a forum discussion? If there are 15 replies, reading still does the trick. But what if there are 275 replies to a forum topic? Or 275 thousand? What about a chat session where the value of the Q&A can be limited or universally profound? How can we value the knowledge available in our online and offline universe?
So knowledge management, a typical controlled activity, is in a conundrum.
I would love to be able to say or write encouraging remarks such as "technology will save us" or "we'll figure out a way such as we always have" but I think this is the wrong answer to the wrong question.
The question no longer is "How can we manage the available knowledge" but rather "How can we distribute the knowledge to use it collectively?".
The problem we're faced with is no longer management but availability. How do we make knowledge into something that is available to those of us who are looking for insight? And how do we share those insights to make them applicable to others?
I have no answers to these questions, but I'm hoping others will contribute to refine the questions to aid looking for answers.
How can we integrate our self into the network?
The interesting talk I heard from professor Norbert Bolz leaves me with a couple of questions. If our economy is increasingly determined by our networked self, then how can we carry out the rest of our lives?
After all, people are born in families and the first thing they learn is how families work. Of course, some families don't work and perhaps the adults from these fragmented relationship childhoods are the best positioned to cope with new social networks. If they manage to create their own social skills, that is.
Our traditional image of a family is very much influenced by the nuclear family, parents and children in a house. The reality today is very different, and perhaps more the way African families work (if you take away the typical isolated context). Divorce and separation are common, so children often have more complex relations with adults. The moment we stop seeing this as detrimental to kids, perhaps we can work out a new ethics of the networked individual.
So am I saying this is good or bad? Far from making moral statements, I am trying to understand and share what the future demands from us. What I am convinced of, is the divide which will become deeper. Between rich and poor, obviously, but also between successful and mainstraem.
People who manage to create a working social network will be the most proficient. But they will also have to live a life. Enjoy things, not necessarily the supposedly wonderful simple things a lot of people grew up with. Many of the fine things in life will be more complicated. All of us will have to learn how to enjoy this, not fear it.
I am hoping to get an answer to this question in one of the later sessions on simplexity, so stay posted.
After all, people are born in families and the first thing they learn is how families work. Of course, some families don't work and perhaps the adults from these fragmented relationship childhoods are the best positioned to cope with new social networks. If they manage to create their own social skills, that is.
Our traditional image of a family is very much influenced by the nuclear family, parents and children in a house. The reality today is very different, and perhaps more the way African families work (if you take away the typical isolated context). Divorce and separation are common, so children often have more complex relations with adults. The moment we stop seeing this as detrimental to kids, perhaps we can work out a new ethics of the networked individual.
So am I saying this is good or bad? Far from making moral statements, I am trying to understand and share what the future demands from us. What I am convinced of, is the divide which will become deeper. Between rich and poor, obviously, but also between successful and mainstraem.
People who manage to create a working social network will be the most proficient. But they will also have to live a life. Enjoy things, not necessarily the supposedly wonderful simple things a lot of people grew up with. Many of the fine things in life will be more complicated. All of us will have to learn how to enjoy this, not fear it.
I am hoping to get an answer to this question in one of the later sessions on simplexity, so stay posted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
