Web2.0 has become the big buzz word of the year.
Reading certain news and hearing some people talk, it seems that we are back in time to 1999, but with tagging and social networking substituting portal and e-commerce as the bright ideas that will change the world, and make (some of) us very rich. Web2.0 has its new heroes (the googles, the flickrs,...) and villains (guess who...). And obviously, there are the pundits that talk a lot about it and create all the hype, and in some cases make a lot of money out of it.
But, we cannot say that we did not learn our lessons: the Web2.0 bubble may explode as the .com bubble did a few years ago, so it is better that we have a new concept ready when this happens: an the term is, obviously, Web3.0.
Web3.0 is just a fancy name for a concept that has been lying around for a few years: the semantic web. I guess that the term semantic web sounds too geeky to attract venture capital, so somebody came up with the fancier Web3.0, and then, publications such as the MIT Technology Review have picked it up, so it is becoming mainstream in the internet and technology related circles. According to Nova Spivack, blogger and founder of one startup using semantic web technologies, there is even a Web4.0 waiting somewhere in the future...
But besides all the naming fireworks, there is a more subtle issue around the concept itself of an intelligent (as in artificial intelligence) network. I've already talked about the goods and bads of the collective intelligence that some of the new internet based technologies enable. The underlying question is how much intelligence are you ready to outsource to somebody else, be it some artificial intelligence search engine, be it the collective seating somewhere in cyberspace or, most probably, a combination of both.
It is obvious that any technology, and Web *.0 is not an exception, embodies in its design lots of cognitive and social assumptions and when adopting those technological artifacts we are, up to a certain extent, adopting those assumptions. And that is fine if you are aware of what are those underlying assumptions and what do they mean for you.
An example with serach engines: although Google's page ranking algorithm is kept as the company's major trade secret, it is well known that it is somehow based on the number of pages that link to a certain page, so, when I'm using Google as a search engine, I know that I'm actually looking, more or less, for the most popular pages about something, and hope that the most popular are also the best. But of course, that is not always the case, so it is nice to have other search engines that are based on other criteria and even a different search space (some of them provided by Google itself, like Google Scholar for research papers).
At the end, I end up using different search engines for different things, and I guess that the Web3.0 response to it would be building some kind of intelligent agent that can embody part of the criteria I use to select between the different criteria embodied in the different search engine options. The only problem I see is that somewhere in this chain of building intelligence on top of intelligence there must be some place left to personal, private, options and criteria.
I have to admit that I have not digged deep enough in the semantic web theories and technologies to understand how personal option and individual difference can be implemented in a way that is also easy to understand and use. But it is also true that I have not seen this issue addressed by any of the Web3.0 visions and predictions I have seen so far. So, at least for the time being, I will remain in the skeptic side about Web3.0 and I'll be, at least, a little reluctant to outsource the small portion of intelligence I have left to some unknown agent...
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing U,
It seems that Web2.0 is the buzzword of the moment. Everybody is talking about it, and, as usually, lots of nonsense is being said, as people try to seem smart and proof that they know better, specially when talking about how Web2.0 is changing all types of social relations (and how they know the best way of making money out of it...)
That is why I find this video interesting. It is well done, goes straight to the point and it is thought provoking. It does not try to define what Web2.0 is (I don't think anybody really knows what it is...) but points out some of the changes that new web based technologies may bring and the controversies that they generate.
That is why I find this video interesting. It is well done, goes straight to the point and it is thought provoking. It does not try to define what Web2.0 is (I don't think anybody really knows what it is...) but points out some of the changes that new web based technologies may bring and the controversies that they generate.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Beautification
The city landscape is full of dull looking artifacts that make things such as semaphores, street lighting... work. But they can also become aesthetic objects with some, sometimes minimal, intervention...
On being an ANT
These days, I'm slowly progressing on the self-imposed task of reading Brumo Latour's introduction to Actor-Network Theory: Reassembling the Social. Although Latour's writing style is relatively light, at least compared to other sociology theorists such as Habermas or Bordieu, I still find quite difficult to grasp all the subtilities of actors, mediators, translation, oligopticons, plug-ins...
My first experience with ANT was in a doctoral course about Technology, Economy and Society, where different theories about the interaction between technology and society, such as technological determinism or social construction of technology, were briefly described. What I found most interesting about ANT, and differentiating to other theories and frameworks, was the role it gives to non-human actors.
Society and Technology Studies have always struggled to accommodate the mechanisms in which technological artifacts and society interact and shape each other. The solution that ANT gives to this problem is quite simple and, at least apparently, neat: there is no technology and society as two separate realms that interact with each other: technological artifacts, and also science facts, are actors in the social network, that interact with other actors in a process of constant reshaping and reassembling.
This concept may sound strange at first, but if you look at it in more detail it starts to make, at least, some sense. It is quite obvious that technological artifacts, such as for example the Internet, on one side embody the values, concepts, ideas, cliches.... of the people, groups, and organizations that participate in their design and development (in their construction...); but they also reshape, reorganize, reassemble those other actors, be them humans or not.
ANT has also had its antagonists and it has been, and still is, subjected to very passionate debates (passionate, at least, for academics standards...), such as the Science Wars episode of the early nineties. Hard core positivists freak out whenever the concept of science being socially constructed is introduced. Latour addresses this topic in Reassembling the social with, I think, a good point: saying that science is constructed does not mean that scientific and technological knowledge is not true, but rather that there are lots of resources, interactions and relations between different actors (remember both human and not human) that have to be assembled to construct it.
However, the part I've found most interesting of the book is the section about how to do ANT research, how to write risky accounts in Latour's terms. The author describes an ethnographic approach and a method to capture data about actors and associations, using four notebooks to ensure that both the actors' own perceptions and the effect of the field data on the research and the researcher are logged.
Technorati Tags: actor-network, ANT, society and technology, ethnography, technology
My first experience with ANT was in a doctoral course about Technology, Economy and Society, where different theories about the interaction between technology and society, such as technological determinism or social construction of technology, were briefly described. What I found most interesting about ANT, and differentiating to other theories and frameworks, was the role it gives to non-human actors.
Society and Technology Studies have always struggled to accommodate the mechanisms in which technological artifacts and society interact and shape each other. The solution that ANT gives to this problem is quite simple and, at least apparently, neat: there is no technology and society as two separate realms that interact with each other: technological artifacts, and also science facts, are actors in the social network, that interact with other actors in a process of constant reshaping and reassembling.
This concept may sound strange at first, but if you look at it in more detail it starts to make, at least, some sense. It is quite obvious that technological artifacts, such as for example the Internet, on one side embody the values, concepts, ideas, cliches.... of the people, groups, and organizations that participate in their design and development (in their construction...); but they also reshape, reorganize, reassemble those other actors, be them humans or not.
ANT has also had its antagonists and it has been, and still is, subjected to very passionate debates (passionate, at least, for academics standards...), such as the Science Wars episode of the early nineties. Hard core positivists freak out whenever the concept of science being socially constructed is introduced. Latour addresses this topic in Reassembling the social with, I think, a good point: saying that science is constructed does not mean that scientific and technological knowledge is not true, but rather that there are lots of resources, interactions and relations between different actors (remember both human and not human) that have to be assembled to construct it.
However, the part I've found most interesting of the book is the section about how to do ANT research, how to write risky accounts in Latour's terms. The author describes an ethnographic approach and a method to capture data about actors and associations, using four notebooks to ensure that both the actors' own perceptions and the effect of the field data on the research and the researcher are logged.
Technorati Tags: actor-network, ANT, society and technology, ethnography, technology
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Standard wars in the Internet age
Standard wars are, probably, one of the better studied cases in technology and innovation management textbooks. There is no serious book in these areas that does not cite the VHS vs. Beta case, as a paradigm of how non technical issues play a key role in the evolution of technologies. This is a concept that is, very often, difficult to assume by pure techies that think that the best technology, best using some quantifiable measure such as speed, image quality,..., is the one that should win regardless of the environment. Market, society, culture... are concepts that are easier to describe than to measure (and, consequently, predict), so they should not appear in the engineer's drawing board.
But standard wars are here to stay, as one of the modes in which conflicts of interests around technology definition and evolution are deployed and, in most of the cases, closed, with winners and losers.
And they are important: can anybody think that internet, as the network of networks, would have evolved to the Internet we know today if the ISO/OSI standards, and its underlying centralized model, had won over TCP/IP in the standards war over computer networking protocols in the 1980s?. Usually, there are high stakes in the game (benefit, control, power,...) and the winner takes it all.
And that's why standards wars are fought with all the weapons available, and in the Internet age, that means, of course, the Internet itself. Standard wars are as much about perception than technology, and Internet is, today, one of the best mechanisms to build or destroy perceptions.
One of the standards wars that is very active these days is the one over standards for document file formats. It has been going on for a couple of years now, with different contenders and fronts: Microsoft with Open Office XML (OOXML) vs. IBM and OASIS with OpenDocument Format(ODF) on the office document front; Microsoft with XML Paper Specification (XPS) vs. Adobe with the Portable Document Format (PDF) on the fixed document front.
As in any standards war, different companies and interest groups are trying to push their standard as the one that better meets customer needs, which usually means the customer needs that can be met by their own standard. The difference is that, in this case, the battle is not only being fought in committee meetings, ballots over draft specs, or corporate alliances. Blogs and wikis have are the places where all the tricks (some of them clean, some of them dirty...) are being played, trying to change the perception of the different technologies at stake.
In this framework, the latest news about Microsoft paying somebody to change the contents of the wikipedia article on OOXML to make it sound more positive, and the reaction that it has caused shows how, for good or for bad, Internet has become an important medium to influence the shaping of technology.
For some this may sound positive: more democracy in the technology shaping process, while for others, it may sound really unsettling as more and more non technical issues will influence what gets designed and implemented. Welcome to the standards wars in the Internet age....
But standard wars are here to stay, as one of the modes in which conflicts of interests around technology definition and evolution are deployed and, in most of the cases, closed, with winners and losers.
And they are important: can anybody think that internet, as the network of networks, would have evolved to the Internet we know today if the ISO/OSI standards, and its underlying centralized model, had won over TCP/IP in the standards war over computer networking protocols in the 1980s?. Usually, there are high stakes in the game (benefit, control, power,...) and the winner takes it all.
And that's why standards wars are fought with all the weapons available, and in the Internet age, that means, of course, the Internet itself. Standard wars are as much about perception than technology, and Internet is, today, one of the best mechanisms to build or destroy perceptions.
One of the standards wars that is very active these days is the one over standards for document file formats. It has been going on for a couple of years now, with different contenders and fronts: Microsoft with Open Office XML (OOXML) vs. IBM and OASIS with OpenDocument Format(ODF) on the office document front; Microsoft with XML Paper Specification (XPS) vs. Adobe with the Portable Document Format (PDF) on the fixed document front.
As in any standards war, different companies and interest groups are trying to push their standard as the one that better meets customer needs, which usually means the customer needs that can be met by their own standard. The difference is that, in this case, the battle is not only being fought in committee meetings, ballots over draft specs, or corporate alliances. Blogs and wikis have are the places where all the tricks (some of them clean, some of them dirty...) are being played, trying to change the perception of the different technologies at stake.
In this framework, the latest news about Microsoft paying somebody to change the contents of the wikipedia article on OOXML to make it sound more positive, and the reaction that it has caused shows how, for good or for bad, Internet has become an important medium to influence the shaping of technology.
For some this may sound positive: more democracy in the technology shaping process, while for others, it may sound really unsettling as more and more non technical issues will influence what gets designed and implemented. Welcome to the standards wars in the Internet age....
Monday, January 15, 2007
To be, or not to be....collective
Collective production of information, content, and knowledge is one of the activities that has been facilitated by the growth of communication networks and the internet. Actually, internet itself could be viewed as the result of a collective construction, and historically, collective creation has been the rule rather than the exception, specially in the case of scientific and technical knowledge. It was not until the European Renaissance and the Enlightenment era that the inventor appears as the creator of a new technology or discoverer of a scientific fact.
However, what technologies such as wiki, and its best known incarnation: wikipedia, change is the size and characteristics of the collective: now anybody can participate in the content production. And, as usual, changes come with controversies: how this impacts the quality of the content, in the particular case of wikipedia, the information?.
Jaron Lanier has coined the term digital maoism to refer to the 'appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise'. Obviously the term has a critical connotation that is elaborated in Jaron's assay and has been contested by other Yochai Blenker, Cory Doctorow or Larry Senger, one of the founders of wikipedia.
The whole controversy seems to be centered on the advantages or disadvantages of collective creation and production of content, or rather, the value that is given to the results of that collective creation, with the example of wikipedia to show the good and the bad. What I found surprising, and somehow disappointing, is that most of the arguments focus on the results rather than the process: it is true that, in many cases, the information collectively created for wikipedia does not meet the standards of a good encyclopedia or scientific paper, but it is precisely the process, discussions and negotiations that take place to create that content that can shed a lot of light on the underlying controversies. I usually find more interesting the wikipedia discussion pages than the actual entry, specially for highly disputed and controversial topics.
As part of my job, I have been trying to extend (proselytize?) the use of wiki based communication and documentation in our organization during the last few months, with, I have to admit, not an overwhelming success. I thought, and I still think, that the type of collective information sharing and the possibilities for knowledge creation and interaction that wiki provide were a perfect fit for the globally distributed environment in which we have to work.
For some reason (and I have some theories that I may discuss some day), things have not worked as I expected: although everybody praised the initiative its use is still marginal... I would consider a major success if some of the underlying controversies, technical and organizational, that we face were detected and addressed precisely in the process of collective creation, much as controversies are publicly highlighted in wikipedia. Unluckily, we are still too far to reach that point, so for the time being I'll be happy if I can increase the use of our wiki just as an information repository...
However, what technologies such as wiki, and its best known incarnation: wikipedia, change is the size and characteristics of the collective: now anybody can participate in the content production. And, as usual, changes come with controversies: how this impacts the quality of the content, in the particular case of wikipedia, the information?.
Jaron Lanier has coined the term digital maoism to refer to the 'appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise'. Obviously the term has a critical connotation that is elaborated in Jaron's assay and has been contested by other Yochai Blenker, Cory Doctorow or Larry Senger, one of the founders of wikipedia.
The whole controversy seems to be centered on the advantages or disadvantages of collective creation and production of content, or rather, the value that is given to the results of that collective creation, with the example of wikipedia to show the good and the bad. What I found surprising, and somehow disappointing, is that most of the arguments focus on the results rather than the process: it is true that, in many cases, the information collectively created for wikipedia does not meet the standards of a good encyclopedia or scientific paper, but it is precisely the process, discussions and negotiations that take place to create that content that can shed a lot of light on the underlying controversies. I usually find more interesting the wikipedia discussion pages than the actual entry, specially for highly disputed and controversial topics.
As part of my job, I have been trying to extend (proselytize?) the use of wiki based communication and documentation in our organization during the last few months, with, I have to admit, not an overwhelming success. I thought, and I still think, that the type of collective information sharing and the possibilities for knowledge creation and interaction that wiki provide were a perfect fit for the globally distributed environment in which we have to work.
For some reason (and I have some theories that I may discuss some day), things have not worked as I expected: although everybody praised the initiative its use is still marginal... I would consider a major success if some of the underlying controversies, technical and organizational, that we face were detected and addressed precisely in the process of collective creation, much as controversies are publicly highlighted in wikipedia. Unluckily, we are still too far to reach that point, so for the time being I'll be happy if I can increase the use of our wiki just as an information repository...
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Virtual migrations
The last few weeks have been very busy, but I have been able to spend dedicate some time Virtual Migration: The Programming of Globalization by A.Aneesh. The book is an interesting attempt to view the phenomenon of software development outsourcing and offshoring from a different perspective. Given my current job, I have done quite a lot of reading about these topics. All the stuff I had read so far seemed to address only two specific areas: the economic effects of the phenomenon or on the methods to implement and efficiency that can be extracted from remote development.
On the first aspect, what is the economic effect of the transfer of software development and related activities from developped countries to other geographies, the materials range from the populist and simplistic analysis (ala Lou Dobbs), to more serious and analytical, and obviously less alarmist, materials. Of course, the problem is that it is much easier to get exposed the former, specially on the generalist media. I must admit that I have had the Report on Globalization and Offshoring of Software (ACM, 2006) sitting in my desktop for the last few months and I have only been able to read the intro, while in this time I've read at least 50 different poorly researched articles about offshoring in general newspapers and TV shows (and that's without counting the Indian newspapers, where there are news every day about the topic!).
On the second area, the materials also range from the simplistic, all the howto guides that, according to their editorial reviews, pretend to have solutions for everything and end up listing a few basic rules together with some anecdotes about cultural differences, to the well researched. In this later group, I must recommend Global IT Outsourcing: software development across borders(Sahay, Nicholson and Krishna, 2005), a book that using an ethnographic aproach analyzes several cases of successful and failed offshoring projects, extracting relevant insights, but without trying to give simple recipes or solutions that should work everywhere. (If I had read this book a few months before I did, I would have been able to skip some of the mistakes I did in the beginning of the project!).
In Virtual Migrations, Aneesh tries to address the whole offshoring/outsourcing/globalization issue from a different perspective: focusing more on what is the effect on the persons and organizations that participate in the whole phenomenon. This is how he comes up with the term that gives the title to the book: he claims that the whole topic can be analyzed as a change in the work migration paradigm. Instead of moving workers, only the work result is moved.
Hence programmers in India become virtual migrants, working for the big (mostly American) corporations from their Indian location. This enables capturing the advantages of migrant workers (basically lower salaries) without having to cope with the issues of integration of immigrants into a different society. This change is happening because of the availability of new digital communication and information technologies and facilitated by a change in the organizations towards what the author calls the algocratic model, where code and software plays a key role in the organizational and work structure.
This would be an example on how technology helps shaping the social structure, but the author escapes both from the fully technological deterministic or fully social construction perspective. For him code, distributed programming and related technologies are more an actor that shapes and is shaped by other economical, social, organizational and technological factors (more like an actor-network in ANT...)
In summary, Virtual Migration is a very interesting work, both from the theoretical perspective and the ethnographic data used in the argumentation, although, from my own experience, I find some of his accounts on how easy is to work IT related work around too optimistic. He does not talk too much about the issue of knowledge migration and its difficulties and barriers.
On the first aspect, what is the economic effect of the transfer of software development and related activities from developped countries to other geographies, the materials range from the populist and simplistic analysis (ala Lou Dobbs), to more serious and analytical, and obviously less alarmist, materials. Of course, the problem is that it is much easier to get exposed the former, specially on the generalist media. I must admit that I have had the Report on Globalization and Offshoring of Software (ACM, 2006) sitting in my desktop for the last few months and I have only been able to read the intro, while in this time I've read at least 50 different poorly researched articles about offshoring in general newspapers and TV shows (and that's without counting the Indian newspapers, where there are news every day about the topic!).
On the second area, the materials also range from the simplistic, all the howto guides that, according to their editorial reviews, pretend to have solutions for everything and end up listing a few basic rules together with some anecdotes about cultural differences, to the well researched. In this later group, I must recommend Global IT Outsourcing: software development across borders(Sahay, Nicholson and Krishna, 2005), a book that using an ethnographic aproach analyzes several cases of successful and failed offshoring projects, extracting relevant insights, but without trying to give simple recipes or solutions that should work everywhere. (If I had read this book a few months before I did, I would have been able to skip some of the mistakes I did in the beginning of the project!).
In Virtual Migrations, Aneesh tries to address the whole offshoring/outsourcing/globalization issue from a different perspective: focusing more on what is the effect on the persons and organizations that participate in the whole phenomenon. This is how he comes up with the term that gives the title to the book: he claims that the whole topic can be analyzed as a change in the work migration paradigm. Instead of moving workers, only the work result is moved.
Hence programmers in India become virtual migrants, working for the big (mostly American) corporations from their Indian location. This enables capturing the advantages of migrant workers (basically lower salaries) without having to cope with the issues of integration of immigrants into a different society. This change is happening because of the availability of new digital communication and information technologies and facilitated by a change in the organizations towards what the author calls the algocratic model, where code and software plays a key role in the organizational and work structure.
This would be an example on how technology helps shaping the social structure, but the author escapes both from the fully technological deterministic or fully social construction perspective. For him code, distributed programming and related technologies are more an actor that shapes and is shaped by other economical, social, organizational and technological factors (more like an actor-network in ANT...)
In summary, Virtual Migration is a very interesting work, both from the theoretical perspective and the ethnographic data used in the argumentation, although, from my own experience, I find some of his accounts on how easy is to work IT related work around too optimistic. He does not talk too much about the issue of knowledge migration and its difficulties and barriers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
