One situation in which a large group of people tries to gather information about a problem is when there is a sudden outbreak of a potentially deadly disease. Thinking back over the past few years, there have been several instances, including SARS, West Nile virus, and avian flu. In most cases, the number of people who actually get the disease is very small, but the cost of catching it could be your life. Therefore, people rush to find information about preventing the disease. These circumstances lend themselves to creating a panic-like situation in which people spread rumors and other misinformation.
In the Vieweg reading, people compiled lists of Virginia Tech victims on Facebook before the names were officially released. The lists maintained a high level of accuracy because of the seriousness of the situation; claims that someone had been killed needed sources to back them up. In the case of a disease outbreak, I think it is harder to gather accurate information just by talking to everyday people. If someone witnessed a shooting, he or she would probably be a reliable source for finding out who the victims were. In contrast, one might know very little about a disease even if a close friend or family member has been diagnosed with it.
Technology can fill this information gap. Reports released by government agencies and other reputable organizations are perhaps the most credible source and they can be accessed quickly online. However, sometimes public officials do not release all available information in an attempt to control the situation. In that case, websites such as Wikipedia could become more valuable resources than the official reports. Many people would post information about both the disease and the specific outbreak on Wikipedia. Of course, that site is not always a reliable source because anyone can contribute to it. To ensure the accuracy of information appearing there during a disease crisis, there would need to be a core of knowledgeable editors who devoted time to checking people's sources and removing incorrect information. With sufficient monitoring, Wikipedia articles could play the same role in a disease outbreak that Facebook groups played during the Virginia Tech crisis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I like the concept, but I think the execution would be tough. I think what I would be most curious about would be the reported cases in different areas. However, it would be really difficult to report those in anything close to real-time. Also, in the case of diseases that take a long time to present (TB, for example), then even real-time reports would be quickly obsolete. But I think you're definitely on to something. I wonder if there will ever be a way to receive text alerts when reports reach a certain number in your city, county, etc .
ReplyDeleteThe idea is good but I think it would be really hard to put this into action. I think there would be too many people who did not understand the full situation who would be reporting on the topic. It would also be hard for editors to go through all of the information to verify its information. What incentive to the editors have for doing this. It could be hard when there is nothing to really gain.
ReplyDelete