Web 2.0 Philosophy and the Web of WondersPresentation Transcript
Web 2.0:Philosophy and theWeb of WondersSpeaker: Koen De Couck
What is web 2.0?Web 2.0 implies a Web 1.0 …
Web 1.0 web 1.0 Web 2.0 web 2.0Static webcontent Dynamic webcontent Animated gifs User generated content Guestbooks Comments Sharing HTML XHTML (XML)Dial-up connections Broadband connection
How to picture the Internet?Visualization of the various routes through a portion of the Internet. (The Opte Project‘, 2003 )
How to picture the Internet?
How to picture the Internet?
How to picture the Internet? Cf. collapse of the dotcom bubble…
Now compare… 2003 2010Visualition provided by the Opte Visualition provided by the BBC and the Project Open University
5 Major forces on Web 2.0 WikipediaYoutube Google Web 2.0 Twitter Facebook
Summary Wikipedia 2001 Jimmy Wales + Larry SangerYoutube Google Leading example of a Web 2.0 wiki Currently 15.080.648 artikels, (of which 3.205.222 in English Twitter Facebook and 580.000 Dutch articles)
Wikipedia system build Article page
Wikipedia system build Discussion page
Wikipedia system build History page
Wikipedia system build User page Build system automation
Epistemology models of knowledge communities The term "god" or "God" has a very wide range of uses — so wide,Citizendium indeed, that no single definition can hope to capture it. Most native English speakers usually understand it to mean the God of Christianity (capitalised), but examples of entities going under the description "god" (not necessarily capitalised) range from very specific to very abstract. They include living human beings such as certain Roman emperors and Egyptian Pharaohs, humanlike beings with superhuman powers such as the Gods of the Ancient Greek, personal but omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good creators such as the God of the Abrahamic religions, and impersonal abstractions such as the Hindu concept of Brahman.Conservapedia “God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist, whether in the physical universe or in the spiritual realm (Heaven).”
Epistemology models of knowledge communitiesQuestion: What role ought we to assign to a neutralpespective, position of the expert or original material in abottom-up knowledge system (cf. „wisdom of the crowds‟) ?
The question on everyone‟s mind: Is Wikipedia reliable?When can I be reasonably sure that the informationon Wikipedia is reliable, given my present, personal needs and criteria?
Some empirical studies of WikipediaLih, 2004Giles, 2005 (Nature)Kittur, 2008Magnus, 2005, 2007, 2009Stvilia, 2009Maurer, 2006
Empirical studies of WikipediaNature (2005):Wikipedia VS Encyclopedia BrittanicaResults:Major errors: Wikipedia (4), Brittanica (4) Equilly reliable!
Empirical studies of WikipediaNature (2005):Wikipedia VS Encyclopedia BrittanicaHowever!- Wikipedia contained the ‘worst of the worst’ !- Smaller errors in Wikipedia > Smaller errors in Brittanica- Very small sample size (40 articles) + all of them scientifictopics!
Empirical studies of Wikipedia- Lih, A., 2004, “Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources?Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource” - n= 333 -Representative topics -Rigor / Diversity
Empirical studies of WikipediaMy own replication of Lih‟s study (De Couck, 2010) - n= 333 -Representative topics -Rigor / Diversity Wikipedia is becoming more ‘close minded’ !!
Quality Criteria of Wikipedia Stvilia et al., 2009 : English, Korean, Arabic Wikipedia‟s De Couck, 2010: English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Bulgarian, Finnish, Swedish, Russian, South-African, Chinese Wikipedia‟sInternational usercommunities
Quality criteria are context dependent! What kind of information do you need:Professional? (paper,research)Quick overview?Specific information of lowimportance?
Students Wikipedia hoax dupesnewspapers: report Posted Thu May 7, 2009 6:01am AESTAn Irish students fake quote on the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia has been used in newspaperobituaries around the world, the Irish Times reported on Wednesday.The quote was attributed to French composer Maurice Jarre, who died in March.Shane Fitzgerald, 22, a final-year student studying sociology and economics at UniversityCollege Dublin, told the newspaper he placed the quote on the website as an experiment whendoing research on globalisation. [… ]"When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head, that only I can hear."The quote was posted on Wikipedia shortly after Jarres death and later appeared in obituaries inmajor British, Indian and Australian newspapers.Mr Fitzgerald told the newspaper he picked Wikipedia because it was something a lot ofjournalists look at and it can be edited by anyone.While he was wary about the ethical implications of using someones death as a socialexperiment, he had carefully generated the quote so as not to distort or taint Jarres life, he said.Mr Fitzgerald said he was shocked by the result of his experiment."I didnt expect it to go that far. I expected it to be in blogs and sites, but on mainstream qualitypapers? I was very surprised about," he said.He said the hoax remained undiscovered for weeks until he emailed the newspapers thathad been deceived to tell them that they had published an inaccurate quote.The Irish Times said that despite some newspapers removing the quote from their websitesor carrying a correction and the fact that it had been dropped by Wikipedia, it remainedintact on dozens of blogs, websites and newspapers.
Web 2.0 = Wiki’s and lots of them! Scholarpedia, Encyclopedia Hiigara, Bulbapedia,Battlestarwiki, Memory Alpha, Heroeswiki, Wikispecies,Wikitravel, Intellipedia, OzBargain Wiki, Foodista.com , … Question: Does the bottom-up system of knowledge gathering make the old dream of a ‘universal library of knowledge’ obsolete? (cf. Cohen, 2009) Question2 : Is a ‘universal library of knowledge’ something atainable?
Summary Wikipedia Founded: 1997Youtube Google Larry Page + Sergey Brin Web 2.0 „Multinational public cloud computing and Internet search technologies corporation‟ Twitter Facebook
How does a search engine work?1 Webcrawler (Spider)2 Inverted Index3 Retriever
Common misconceptions about search engines‘All searchengines „A search engine ‘Search results don’twork the same’ scans the web in real change’ time’The way a search Query keywords are Search algoritms areengine determines compared against the constantly revisedrelevance is dependant inverted index and change dependanton the algorithm used. compiled by the on one‟s own searchIt is the closest guarded indexer (a catalogued behaviour.secret of any internet copy of just onesearch company. section of the internet)
Poll: How many of you exclusively use Google when conducting web searches? Market share of Google in the Dutch Search Engine Market = 95% (!) Europe = 90% United States = 72%
Do you feel lucky? (Googlebombs)In 2005 community actions by political partieswere able link the homepage of George W. Bush directly to thesearch phrase „miserable failure’In 2004, Jewish writer Daniel Sieradski asked his blog readers to linkto the Wikipedia article for “Jew” after he found that googling “Jew”returned the anti-Jewish website “Jew Watch” as the top entry. Thebombing was a success and removed the site from the top result, butunfortunately „Jew Watch‟ still appears on the first page of results.
What we put out there: On August 4, 2006, AOL Research, headed by Dr. Abdur Chowdhury, released a compressed text file on one of its websites containing twenty million search keywords for over 650,000 users over a 3-month period, intended for research purposes. AOL pulled the file from public access by the 7th, but not before it had been mirrored and distributed on the Internet. While none of the records on the file are personally identifiable per se, certain keywords contain personally identifiableThelma Arnold (Aged 62), information as a result of the original searcher typing in his or her own name (ego-searching), as well as address, social a.k.a.‟user 4417749‟ security number, and other personal information. And since each user is identified on this list by a unique sequential key, it enables a researcher to compile a given users search history. The New York Times was able to locate an individual from the released and anonymized search records by cross referencing them with phonebook listings. Consequently, the ethical implications of using this data for research are under debate.
What we put out there: On August 4, 2006, AOL Research, headed by Dr. Abdur Chowdhury, released a compressed text file on one of its websites containing twenty million search keywords for over 650,000 users over a 3-month period, intended for research purposes. AOL pulled the file from public access by the 7th, but not before it had been mirrored and distributed on the Internet. While none of the records on the file are personally identifiableA series of mini movies „I love per se, certain keywords contain personally identifiableAlaska‟ based on the search information as a result of the original searcher typing in his or her own name (ego-searching), as well as address, social history of ‟user 711391‟ security number, and other personal information. And since each user is identified on this list by a unique sequential key, it enables a researcher to compile a given users search history. The New York Times was able to locate an individual from the released and anonymized search records by cross referencing them with phonebook listings. Consequently, the ethical implications of using this data for research are under debate.
What we put out there: On August 4, 2006, AOL Research, headed by Dr. Abdur Chowdhury, released a compressed text file on one of its websites containing twenty million search keywords for over 650,000 users over a 3-month period, intended for research purposes. AOL pulled the file from public access by the 7th, but not before it had been mirrored and distributed on the Internet. While none of the records on the file are personally identifiableThe chilling search history of per se, certain keywords contain personally identifiable ‘user 927’ inspired a play information as a result of the original searcher typing in his or her own name (ego-searching), as well as address, social security number, and other personal information. And since each user is identified on this list by a unique sequential key, it enables a researcher to compile a given users search history. The New York Times was able to locate an individual from the released and anonymized search records by cross referencing them with phonebook listings. Consequently, the ethical implications of using this data for research are under debate.
Eric E. Schmidt (Google CEO) :“Judgment matters.[...] If you have something that you dontwant anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in thefirst place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the realityis that search engines — including Google — do retain thisinformation for some time… its important, for example, that weare all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it ispossible that all that information could be made available tothe authorities."
Kulathuramaiyer & Balke (2006): “Following the common belief that “information is power” the implications of what the data collection of a de-facto monopolist in the field like Google could be used for should be obvious. However, user studies show that the real implications of what a company like Google can do, is already doing, and might do in a not too distant future, are not explicitly clear to most people” CensorManipulate unfavorable the stock Buy/sell opinions? personal market? information? Rewrite history?
Google Google Google GoogleMaps Earth Translate Books Google Gmail Picasa Chrome Calender Google Google Google YoutubeCalender News LatitudeGoogle Google Google GoogleWave Knol Notebook Scholar
Google Street View
Google’s revelation about Street View photo collection enrages European officialsEuropean officials were infuriated with Google after it revealed on Friday, 14th May 2010 about its collection of private data since2006 for the photo archive of Street View. Under pressure of European privacy regulators and legal officers, Google opened up aboutthe kind of data and its source for the photo archive.New York Times reports that Google revealed on Friday, 14th May that the world’s largest search engine had collected snippets ofprivate data around the world. In a personal blog of Google, it was mentioned that the information was sent over unencryptedresidential wireless networks as Google’s Street View cars with mounted recording equipment passed by.Google also said that the data collection was by mistake and was unintentional that happened due to programming error. Thecollection took place in all the countries whereStreet View had been catalogued. Google apologized for the error and assured that theinformation wasn’t used and would be deleted as per regulations.The officials in Europe were furious and demanded an explanation on Saturday, 15th May 2010. Ilse Aigner, German minister for food,agriculture and consumer protection demanded a full accounting after Google said that the data collection could include websitesviewed by individuals or the content of their e-mails. German minister felt that it was a violation of law.Johannes Caspar, who is handling the Google issue on behalf of German government’s dealing, said that the incident would be lookedinto by European national data protection chiefs. However, he didn’t reveal the steps to be taken by European officials.As Google came up with the details on Street View data collection, the European officials now hope that the legal proceedings gowell and Google does what it promises to do! Note: Privacy is (apparently) much less an issue in the U.S.
Your opinion?Google Italy – YouTube video. The most dramatic issue Google had to deal with wasthe YouTube privacy issue in Italy. Three Google executives were sentenced to asuspended sentence of six months in prison because an Italian court found Googleguilty of violating an Italian privacy code. The video involved a youth with Down’ssyndrome in Italy being taunted by four teenagers, with Italy alleging that Googledidn’t respond quickly enough to takedown demands.Google Streetview. Another area in which Google clashed with the European privacyissues is Google Streetview. In many European countries there were people opposed toGoogle’s taking street level pictures and making them available through Google Mapsand Earth. Citizens of a small town in England even persuaded authorities to forceGoogle to stop photographing the village.Many European countries have strict rules when it comes to photos. One of the thingsthe EU is pushing Google on is the time Google keeps its unblurred versions of theimages. But there are even laws, such as in Denmark, which prohibit the taking ofpictures in public places or from people in public places, suggesting that Google’staking any pictures in public may just be illegal
Your opinion?The CompuServe Germany CaseOn May 28, 1998, in a closely watched international dispute, a former CompuServeofficial was convicted in Germany of violating local pornography laws. Felix Somm,who headed CompuServe Deutschland operations until he was indicted in 1997, wasblamed for not blocking access to pornographic pictures that were available on theInternet. By convicting Mr. Somm, the court appears to be saying that Internet serviceproviders in Germany are responsible for Internet content and must takeaffirmative steps to block access to objectionable material.Epilogue: Munich, Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The former head of CompuServe Corp.sGerman operations, who was convicted last year of allowing distribution of childpornography on the Internet, had the verdict reversed by a German state court, theAssociated Press reported. Felix Somm, 35, was convicted in May 1998 and received atwo-year suspended sentence from the Munich Administrative Court for complicity in13 cases of distributing illegal pornography by not blocking CompuServe customeraccess to Internet sites. The court, in overturning the conviction, said there was notechnology available at the time that would have let CompuServe block thepublication of the questionable material, AP said
A selection of recent quotations:“Google is not the competitor, Google is the environment”(Skrenta, 2007)“The perfect search engine would understand exactely what you meanand give back exactely what you want”(Larry Page, Google corporate philosophy, 2007)“Mankind is in the process of constructing reality by googling”(Weber, 2006)
Wikipedia Summary °2004 Mark ZuckerbergYoutube Google Social networking Web 2.0 service, reports approx. 400 milion users (30% American) If it were a country, it Flickr Facebook would be the 3rd largest in the world
Facebook is the culmination point of social networkingHomo sapiens is a social creature: we wish toremain close to our significant others and Status updates andcrave information about the activities of others comments that(cf. popularity of gossip media) encourage interactivity Question: Social addictive?Social networking allows us to communicateand exchange ideas with likeminded people Suggestions ofand work together on greater projects friends, interests, books, … Question: Narrowing our vision on the world?
How many friends do you have on Facebook? (the Dunbar number)We are the product of our evolutionary history and this colours our everyday lives -including the number of friends we can have, according to a book published by ProfessorRobin Dunbar. Robin Dunbar, Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at the University ofOxford, says 150 is the maximum number of friendships that the human mind iscapable of handling. Dunbars number, as it is known, even applies to the Facebookgeneration.Professor Dunbar concludes that the volume of the neocortex region of our brain, usedfor language and thought, limits the number of friends we can maintain. He argues thisnumber has not changed much throughout history and applies in the same way on theweb as it does in real life. He even goes as far as to say that anyone who claims to havemore is suspect, as the quality of relationships deteriorates as the social group widens.
Douglas Rushkoff (Author Life inc) :“What weve done is limited the range of humanexpression and activity on the internet to those thingsthat are market friendly.Look at the devolution of peoples personal presenceonline, from the quirky individualistic, highlypersonalized website [the homepages], of the html mid-nineties, to the now utterly conformist and rigid profileson something like Myspace and Facebook.You can no longer define yourself by anything. You mustdefine yourself by what books you buy, by what moviesyou like, by what actresses you aspire to, by whetheryou are single, married or looking„,by things that the market understands.”
Douglas Rushkoff (Author Life inc) :“Recommendation engines by telling me whatpeople like me do and encouraging to be like aperson like me, they help me to become moreprototypically one of my kind of person. And themore like one of my kind of person I become, theless „me‟ I am and the more I am a demographictype.”
Facebook and Privacy issues: It‟s complicated“Clearly Facebook has taught us some lessons. We want easier ways to share photos,links and short updates with friends, family, co-workers and even, sometimes, the world.But that doesn’t mean the company has earned the right to own and define ouridentities.”(Wired, 2010)May 12, 2010: 14 privacy groups filed a unfair-trade complaint with the FTC against Facebook More information:interests andhttp://www.reclaimprivacy.org/ current city,April 19, 2010: Today, Facebook removed its users ability to control who can see their own personal information. Certain parts of users profiles, "including yourhometown, education and work, and likes and interests" will now be transformed into"connections," meaning that they will be shared publicly. If you dont want these parts of yourprofile to be made public, your only option is to delete them.(Opsahl, 2010)
Linear versus Associative thinking
Linear versus Associative thinking
Linear versus Associative thinking“older adults who spent time browsing the web “Shortened attention span. Less interest innot only boosted their brain power but also reflection and introspection. Inability to engagecould help prevent cognitive decline such as in in-depth thought. Fragmented, distractedAlzheimer‟s disease and dementia later on in thinking.” (Begley, 2010)life” (Thompson, 2008) “those who reported using the Internet regularly in their everyday lives showed twice as much signaling in brain regions responsible for decision-making and complex reasoning, compared with those who had limited Internet exposure. The findings, to be published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, suggest that Internet use enhances the brains capacity to be stimulated, and that Internet reading activates more brain regions than printed words. “ (Interlandi, 2008)