Shirky (Ch. 4-6)

Chapter five in this book was awesome!! The example that Shirky uses (Wikipedia)shows us quite a few things about the ability of individuals to come together as a group (albeit an unorganized one or one that is only organized through the conglomeration of people visiting the site) and initiate a compilation of knowledgeable factoids to help create a site that relies completely upon user input.

The ability for anyone to help write the Wiki articles created a "sense" of community and enabled those without credentials to put forth information that could be valuable to the Wikipedia community and system.

The most intriguing part of the book so far revolved around the power law that was described in chapter five. Chapter four held some key points which I will discuss. Chapter six fell flat with nothing to offer but a rehashed version of the beginning of the book utilizing an example of the Catholic church and the VOTF.

Chapter four seemed to coincide with some of what Tapscott was saying in Grown up Digital. Chapter four discussed the capabilities that new technology brings to the table for groups to be able to communicate. Shirky shows how communication is "instant, global, and nearly permanent." Shirky goes on to discuss how meetings are now able to be formed instantly when utilizing the internet. The concept of fame on the internet is also noteworthy. It's interesting to note that fame is exactly similar both on the web and in real life....People of fame simply aren't able to interact with their audience in either setting.

Curiously Shirky describes web pages as a latent community. Often web communities are centers for people to communicate and share ideas and resolve issues. To consider a website to be a latent community seems to be somewhat overstating the context of what community is. A web page is nothing more than a viewpoint or selectable site in which people can scan information and direct that information to reach a determined destination or conclusion. There are many paths that a user may take when visiting a website. The path that they choose may not reflect an interest in chatting or interacting with the community while they are on the site, even if they hold a common interest there.


The profound nature of chapter five contains a substance that should be given specific academic attention. The imbalance that drives large social systems instead of damaging them makes for a reviewable read. When Shirky states, "On the contrary, most large social experiments are engines for harnessing inequality rather than limiting it" and "large social systems cannot be understood as a simple aggregation of the behavior of some nonexistent "average" user" he sets the tone for the power law distribution.

As Shirky frames the context of the power law into a visible graph, the reader is easily able to recognize the impact factor that the "few" have on many. It shows how the "few" are achieving a large amount compared to those that are "average" and contributing for the masses more so than the "average user". It was also brilliant to note that power law distributions "describe systems of interacting element rather than just collections of variable elements." I have always questioned the conditions of statistical analysis and it's skewed view of a small sample compared with that of a much larger scope. Shirky's brilliant demonstration of the power law helped me to solidify my assertions regarding the statistical analysis process by describing how the analysis can be changed by only a few people in a sample. While it's possible that some of those who read this may disagree with my assertions, the skeptic viability regarding statistical analysis's can be referenced in correlation with Shirky's published work.

It should be interesting to see what transpires in the last few chapters of this book.

Here Comes Everybody (Ch. 1-3)

Reading Shirky was an eye opener. I had never really given thought, at least in depth, to the profound effect that ephemeral grouping and structures had on the world. The scenarios Shirkey gives definitely drive home the importance that these ephemeral groups play in the role of information delivery and their ability to take action in a given situation. It was interesting to note that this wasn't even possible ten years ago. The ability to quickly generate the amount of attention to any given situation is really mind boggling. To be able to change the "verdict" of a police department over a "lost" cell phone is amazing as well. What Shirky so distinctly points out is the ability to take action or recourse both swiftly and effectively utilizing a mass communication and action system full of individuals. The individuals that get involved may offer different skill sets and be able to offer assistance and services that may not have been available before a viral spread of a particular piece of information. As we see later in the reading, these self-constructed groups can do much more than help get back a cell phone.

In Shirky's Flikr example we are able to see that a file sharing platform was able to be an organizer of sorts, bringing together a united "tag-line" of photographs with relative ease. By tagging the photographs and linking them together they were able to create a "collage" of peoples works regarding an event and enable users of the platform a way in which communication and sharing were possible with minimal expenditures.

Also important is the current ability to relay information so quickly. The tactile trait of information sharing instantaneously is obvious in most of Shirky's scenario's but was definitely prominent in his example of Trent Lott's comment on Strom Thurmond's birthday.

While Lott's comment too many seemed innocuous, the ability to stream the content of his comment was contextualized by the media and regarded by many to be of great consequence. The stream of information enabled people to become intimately familiar with something that they may have never known about otherwise. So is this a good thing or a bad thing? How do we perceive the notion that immediacy plays in our own lives?

It's unnerving to think that an innocent comment regarding a situation could have an impact that could conceivably end your career. This may show the negative impact that this information flow can have on people in general, but what about the important aspects of information flow? Shirky shows a positive spin on information flow by utilizing the example of Ivanna and her lost cell phone. It's important to realize however, that Shirky comments on the negative side effects of information flow aside from the positive outcome regarding Ivanna's (and Evan's) triumph.

How do we win? There doesn't seem to be any real finite answer to this question. It seems as though we must weigh our actions with that of unintended consequences and hope for the best outcome. But as the saying goes, "What goes around, comes around" or "What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander."