In Chapter 6, Pierre Lévy optimistically reiterated the idea of how an “achievable utopia” would allow knowledge communities to communicate freely to the point that we become more democratic. Jenkins stated, “In Lévy’s world, people from fundamentally different perspectives see a value in talking and listening to one another, and such deliberations form the basis for mutual respect and trust” (246). Ultimately, Lévy is suggesting that when everyone has the same access to info, distrust will evolve.
Although we have not reached the “achievable utopia,” we are in an “apprenticeship” phase. In explaining the “apprenticeship” phase, Jenkins described, “We are still learning what it is like to operate within a knowledge culture. We are still debating and resolving core principles that will define our interactions with each other” (249).
I can agree that we are in an apprenticeship phase, but I still wonder what constitutes an “achievable utopia? Lévy’s “achievable utopia” is too vague and abstract because it could mean so many things. Where do we start in order to communicate freely with each other? As more and more information accumulates through our apprenticeship phase, we will become overwhelmed. For example, I have to read 3 different newspapers a day (Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wallstreet Journal) just to get the proper facts of a news story.
Really interesting point you make, especially about having to read 3 different papers in order to be properly informed; I do the exact same, especially if I'm trying to look something up online. I can't be sure until I've verified the same information a few times over. But I think the achievable utopia Lévy is talking about refers to losing the necessity to have to read multiple newspapers or news sites without having to worry about the reappropriation of information for a specific agenda. In theory, the information gathered by each news source should be the same, but in compiling the story, the different slants of each site or paper creates a unique take on a specific news site. In Lévy's achievable utopia, we will be able to take in the information before it's put through the interpreting process.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you're absolutely right about it becoming overwhelming; we might always need a filter for information. Political parties represent an important example of this: we could just take in every bit of information about each candidate and their stances, but candidates align themselves with a particular party in order to help those without the means to sift through every bit of information to understand at a glimpse what the general opinions and stances of a candidate are, hopefully leading to their receiving votes.
Totally agree with how we have to look for data on different sites in order to be sure we're receiving accurate details. I am guilty, however, of being lazy and just accepting what my preferred newspaper, NY Times, says. It surely isn't the best idea, but so much info overload and competition for data has made me want to take a step back and accept that even if I look through three different newspapers, I might still not be able to have the complete, accurate story. Maybe the "achievable utopia" is as simple as when the public has the initiative to go and look for information, in one or in ten newspapers, rather than sitting and having the information find them.
ReplyDeleteI still don't think Levy's utopia is truly possible. The main characteristic of it seems to stem from the availability of information in the modern age, but as you should know by reading multiple newspapers, there's always going to be a serious signal-to-noise issue; for all the information there's going to be equal amounts of misinformation. It happened with print, and it's going to happen with digital media. The rules have changed, but the game will ultimately stay more or less the same, no matter how utopian we might see it as.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the fluorescence of a real knowledge communities culture could potentially neutralize the signal-to-noise issue. Self-regulating organizations like Wikipedia have great checks against misinformation... largely because the majority of contributors believe in the project and want to see it succeed. We could learn from our experiences with Wikipedia to develop collective expertise on any number of topics. The key is the discussion surrounding the knowledge... if participants learn how to tune in -- in the case of Wikipedia, how to read the page history -- then the checks against faulty info will probably hold.
ReplyDeleteNews might be another issue... but then again, if you're getting news from multiples source, that's probably a good thing, right?
I agree with David that a utopia is not reached by homogeneity but by a fair and democratic representation of each individual. I feel like the way to start moving towards Levy's utopian knowledge community is to focus more on collective intelligence. Using collective intelligence will make sure that each individual contributes to the whole so that no one party is represented more than another. Any misinformation that's out there could easily be cleared up in a knowledge community that used collective intelligence because each person in the community would research the issue and bring their conclusions together to weed out the false information.
ReplyDelete