One problem that people often face, especially online, is verifying the validity of information presented in the news. There are April Fools jokes, images manipulated with Photoshop, and fake news articles. With particularly shocking news or outrageous images, people tend to work together as a group to determine the validity. This can be seen in several situations, but the April Fools joke is a good example. News is still reported on April 1st, but the internet can become a very untrustworthy place, even on official sites.
Last year at this time, the multimedia news website IGN posted a trailer for a new movie being released. Even though the subject of the movie seemed unlikely, the production value of the trailer was extremely high. It was full of special effects, and it was produced by an official production company. Many people were unsure if the trailer was real or fake, and they responded by starting discussions on internet forums. They offered different points of view and worked together to track down other sources of information regarding the trailer (a good example: http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/messagetopic.asp?p=7688890). Communication on forums was simple and easy, and the ability to link to information on other websites was extremely useful.
Similar to the Virginia Tech shooting in Vieweg’s article, individual experiences and sources of information came together as part of a collective intelligence, “where a large distributed group of people who exhibited problem-solving capabilities came together on-line.” The difference here, however, is that the situation was not a crisis. The situation at Virginia Tech resulted in a very accurate flow of information because of the seriousness of the situation and respect for those who had been killed. The flow of information following an April Fools joke is not necessarily accurate, but one could argue that the problem is enough reason for there to be accurate information. People are already confused about the accuracy of something else, and it is much more difficult to supply false information in such a skeptical environment.
This technological adaptation is a rather simple transition, given the fact people viewing online news sites are able to communicate within the same medium. However, technology could be used in similar situations offline, as well. People listening to the “War of the Worlds” broadcast, for example, could have highly benefited from being able to discuss its validity online. Potentially false information can sometimes result in panic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I also think this is a good example of group problem-solving. A forum is also an excellent medium to do this, since, as you said, it is easy to post links as well as your opinion.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you referenced the "War of the Worlds" broadcast. If the internet was up and running back then, I'm sure the outcome would have been radically different!
Interesting. I talked about forums too in my blog post. Like you said, people solving problems in forum posts often post links to other sources. It's easy to broker information online because you can just post links. I wonder about the role of credibility in forums because often anonymous posters can put up irrelevant or wrong information. In those cases, it is more the moderators job to be a watchdog than the group's responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI really like this example of group problem-solving. Although April fools jokes are far from being as serious as the Virginia Tech shootings, when we look at the flow of information and how accurate it may be, there are some similarities.
ReplyDelete