Bill Erickson sent me Kevin Kelly’s TED talk “Predicting the Next 5,000 Days of the Web”. Kelly discusses the semantic web, which uses relational data to make associations between site to site, profile to profile. The idea of a converging, thinking web is a fascinating concept. Kelly calls this thinking web “more reliable than its parts”. He goes so far as to calls the thinking web “The One”.
I am not afraid of the semantic web. What I am afraid of is a portrayal it as merely unifying. The web converges but it also destroys and stratifies, and NO ONE can truly grasp how all of these points within the web fully relate. It asks us to separate the truth from our own perspective of that truth. If this Truth exists, we wouldn’t be able to get passed ourselves to see it.
So how will the semantic web think outside a bias? We can try algorithms, but inevitably money and time seem to get factored in. A company called Google seems to always put Knol pages ahead of Squidoo pages on search results, even though they do the same thing. Knol is owned by Google whereas Squidoo is not though. The web is also biased because most people in the world are not on it, and therefore could not offer their own even perspective if they tried.
Food for thought: is the web “more reliable than its parts” if 5,000 people report a story incorrectly and the one person who was actually there is totally computer illiterate?
How will the semantic web distinguish what is popular versus what is right? Can it? How can we take steps so that truth goes beyond hype?
7 responses so far ↓
1 Alex S. Jones // Aug 19, 2008 at 9:56 am
I think it’s good to take another step back when discussing the future of the Web, whether it is semantic or another variant and keep in mind that humans are involved at every step. We create, organize and consume. The Web is merely transportation.
We as a species tend to adopt that which is popular over what is right or useful, when the separation is significant (successful, charismatic dictator over those they oppress, gossip shows over documentaries, etc.) This shifts over time when the right option gains popularity or is promoted by a strong enough outside force.
I think the value of the next significant incarnation of the Web will be in how it evens the playing field by reducing the time that hype dominates truth.
Oh, and then there’s an entire discussion on “what is truth”, when we’re dealing with perspectives communicated via the Web - the Russian-Georgian conflict being a great example of two sets of truth that are not very easy to untangle, even for a simple time line.
A relational Web is a powerful tool, but I don’t think it will be much more perfect than an encyclopedia - the relational mappings are connecting human communications and knowledge, so there are inherent flaws in any but the most black and white of subject matters.
A bit of a rambling response on my part, but I hope it makes sense. I guess I would sum it up with a modification to one of your sentences above: “[humanity] converges but it also destroys and stratifies, and NO ONE can truly grasp how all of these points within [our shared understanding] fully relate.” If we can reduce the differences and tighten up the connections we will make progress.
Alex S. Joness last blog post..Recent Links: August 10 to August 17
2 Michelle // Aug 19, 2008 at 10:26 am
@Alex
Very good points regarding the Georgia/Russia conflict. Even w/ as much info as we have, it’s hard to determine where to stand on everything.
Re: Reducing differences and tightening connections. This in the ultimate sense has to be the goal, but seeking truth, even if it is painfully different, is a part of this process.
I guess I just get sick of “Apple web 2.0″ design, the same buzz words, and this utopian idea that somehow the web is going to save the world. We often use the web to create. People like Al-Queda choose to use it to destroy. Do we chose to see this? How does this affect our perceptions of the world?
I don’t want to be a terrorist, but I’m also a bit bored of it all in the end.
3 Alex S. Jones // Aug 19, 2008 at 11:50 am
The Web, and the Net as a whole are a technology. It’s no different than paper. A quick review of history will show you many instances where writing and printing have caused mass consternation and fear as well as many instances where it has served as a light in a dark life. Technology isn’t good or bad, it’s the way that it is used and the way that it is consumed that matters.
The semantic Web holds promise of making it easier to learn and connected topics. It also holds the promise that these connections will require little to no human effort, but a scientist searching for an antidote will be searching the same wealth of knowledge as the student writing a report on the plague and a terrorist hoping to destroy others in their search for media relevance.
The technology in and of itself doesn’t matter. The medium doesn’t matter beyond the amount of people it reaches.
The message matters. Whether or not it is verifiable via current means or future means, it’s the message. People will tell the truth or they will lie and distort as their goals require.
The “thinking” Web is made up of humans with better interconnections than we currently have, but it will be susceptible to popularity, we just need to find ways to even that balance without making the system easy to scam.
Alex S. Joness last blog post..Recent Links: August 10 to August 17
4 Michelle // Aug 19, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Alex, props. Very well put.
5 PJ Brunet // Aug 20, 2008 at 10:41 am
I don’t think finding great information is hard. How many search engines, robots, directories, libraries, organization/classification systems do you need?
As for “intelligent agents” and “thinking”, the web does that all day long. Probably a third of all the traffic to this blog is non-human already, look at your logs, some of those bots will identify themselves as such. In fact, I wouldn’t be here right now if it wasn’t for a Google Gadget agent running on my desktop.
PJ Brunets last blog post..Criminally Accessing MySpace
6 tim hoang // Aug 21, 2008 at 5:30 am
it’s an interesting debate and what it ultimately boils down to is whether the Web can think for itself when humans struggle with many of the issues. I think the Semantic web will not be this all encompassing entity - more like a gradual step by step that makes searches (or whatever) more relevant as time goes on. It’ll be evolution not revolution
7 keo // Oct 21, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Great post m8, looking forward to more posts like this, so i bookmarked you
keos last blog post..Link feed - submit your blog to get better page rank !
Leave a Comment