See website at end here.
While there are some successes in building communal knowledge, Wikipedia is a great example of this, at times all of this seems a little pie in the sky and idealistic. For example, the video says that the internet gives information to those who can’t afford to buy it. But, not everyone can afford internet. We can’t all participate in these online communities. Moreover, I’m wondering how successful most of these attempts are. As Aftersox writes:
I say it’s just a new way of thinking - not a better or worse way. So… I’ve hit my three paragraph limit here. I don’t expect anyone to read further than this.
I’ve noticed that sometimes, the posts in the socioblogopia (search on it here… thanks Anomie) that are the most complex, which often means they have the most ability to be developed into a communal idea, are not commented upon. I don’t know. Perhaps it’s the highly specialized nature of the knowledge we tend to share on these blogs.
For example, in a previous post I talk about affect control theory. While I know there are a few blogging social psychologists out there, that doesn’t mean they are familiar with that one particular theory. And, even if they are, that they would be able to answer a statistical question. And, for those that come with statistical or mathematical knowledge (like C.J.), may not understand enough by my admittedly overly simplistic description of the theory and research question to be able to give me input.*
So are some particular types of knowledge more eligible for this Utopian knowledge development? Or, perhaps it’s because millions of people do not read socioblogs, whereas they do Wikipedia? Perhaps this WILL get better as more people read blogs? As it becomes more common to be a part of this world? For example, if Heise was a blogger, maybe he would be full of comments on my idea.
*I know I just put the original ACT post up, so may still get comments. It’s just an example.
