Open Media, Take Two: The Sensemakers

Sensemaking -- organizing and transmitting data via the distributed architecture of the Net -- is the big idea behind the rise of Open Media. Media of the future won't select a handful of stories and sell them, they'll hook consumers up to the information they want and need and find new ways to make money. They will make sense of the information explosion for overwhelmed individuals. In fact, they're already doing it. This new kind of open media is the most promising information model of the future, and the likely successor to what we used to call journalism. (Second of a series.)

Open Media offer one of the world's most badly-needed services: sensemaking.The dropping cost of information is driving much of the global economy. So it makes sense that organizing the information available online is a booming industry, the most vibrant new form of media.

Connecting information consumers with information may become one of the defining elements of successful media in the 21st Century. Open Media reverse the traditional flow of information, practiced by institutions from governments to churches to conventional journalism. Open Media outlets don't offer information mandated by a handful of executives, editors, producers and writers, although they do reflect different points-of-view and they filter to varying degrees. Through Open Media, sensemaking takes place not only among individual users, but among readers, users and people who link to Open Media sites. These sites are continually spotting, collating, submitting, archiving, sharing, linking and discussing information. Open Media was -- is -- being engineered and pioneered by the young, whose technical expertise is far ahead of most of the people responsible for raising and educating them.

They are in the right place at the right time with the right skills. Some of the most prescient technological observers saw the need both for Open Media and sensemaking decades ago. At the end of World War II, even as University of Pennsylvania scientists were patching together the first electronic computer, federal official Vannevar Bush warned that society was creating information far faster than it could make use of.

"The difficulty seems to be that publication has been extended far beyond our present ability to make use of the record," Bush wrote. "The summation of human experience is being expanded at a prodigious rate, and the means we use for threading through the consequent maze to the momentarily-important item is the same as was used in the days of square-rigged ships."

Not any more. Bush would probably be shocked with wonder if he could spend a few minutes browsing on the Net. But all over the world, as tens of millions come online, popular awareness of an "information explosion" becomes daily more acute. The quantity of information accessible by personal computer -- now reaching far beyond the file system of a single computer to complex systems all over the planet -- has increased by a factor of millions.

Citizens of the modern age increasingly bewildered, overwhelmed by the extraordinary quantities of data coming at them from all sides. They are also increasingly restive and disappointed with media that make information choices for them, including choices they don't want or need. Before the Net, they had no choice but to patronize such top-down media. Now they do, and in growing numbers, they are leaving behind their old information industries and suppliers, from newspapers to network TV.

This leaves the media of the future in flux, up for grabs. Only a handful of people understand the specialized skills and systems of a technological society, both miraculous and unnerving to the point that they are driving users nuts. Americans in particular lead a hyperactive information life. And their media -- the institutions supposed to help guide and inform them -- have been as overwhelmed as they are.

As reported by Mark Stefik in his book The Internet Edge, Bush's 1945 observation -- he was at the time director of the Federal Office of Scientific Research and Development, and one of the most prominent scientists in the country -- led to that now-familiar metaphor, the "information explosion," popularized in Alvin Toffler's 1970 book Future Shock.

The very word "explosion" has ominious connotations; it's not benign or welcoming. It suggests a powerful force unleashed suddenly and destructively. One way to contain the information explosion would be to reduce the amount of information; that's not going to happen. Information drives the global economy, and its price is going down all the time.

A better solution -- and a hallmark of the new forms of Open Media evolving all across the Internet -- is to help people keep up with the information most relevant to their interests. This is precisely where traditional -- or Closed -- media have stumbled. Closed Media sites -- Salon, Slate, Inside.com -- struggle with the idea that evolutionary forms of media aren't about delivering opinions, commentary, pre-selected and reported stories involving chosen agendas. Quite the opposite; they're about permitting individuals -- using the most interactive aspects of new technology -- to shape their own information needs and values. Open Media use new forms of information architecture to permit people to define, seek and use the information they want. Closed media operate by permitting a handful of individuals to select information and distribute it, in the hopes that people will want and buy it.

Information explosions have occurred before, but this one is a hummer. The volume of information available in the developed world has been steadily increasing for hundreds of years, but seldom as rapidly as in the past generation. The Net, among other media, zaps information that was once available only via "enclave" institutions -- schools, libraries, publishing companies, churches, universities -- to whomever cares to see it. Open Media is inherently political, since information has traditionally been carefully parceled out to people (especially younger people) in small doses by educational, religious and other institutions. The reality of Open Media is that access to information by younger people is no longer monopolized by closed institutions and media organizations. The grownups don't like it one bit.

Any kid with a computer has access to vast amounts of the world's information archives, perhaps the most frightening reality of the Internet to most older Americans and political figures. The young are the dominant sensemakers of our culture, and perhaps the only ones qualified to assume that role.

Far beyond Vannevar Bush's imaginings, information is almost universally within reach to those who can afford computing. Yet those people complain constantly, increasingly, that they have no idea how to use it productively, or how to gather, absorb and store it all. Incalculable amounts of information are missed or lost by computers daily due to confusion, lack of storage, printing or other technical problems. Those of us online are all librarians now, all media moguls in various odd ways. We all struggle to make sense out of the overwhelming information choices that surround us.

Visions of Open Media aren't entirely new, either. Thomas Jefferson repeatedly argued for a de-centralized press through which individual citizens, politicians and merchants would fire ideas at one another. In l961, Pentagon scientist and Net visionary J.C.R. Licklider, who initiated much of the early funding for what became the Net, described an "information desk," which Vannevar Bush had visualized years earlier.

"The average person will have his intellectual Ford or Cadillac -- comparable to the investment he makes now in an automobile -- or ...he will rent one from a public utility that handles information processing as Consolidated Edison handles electric power. In business, government, and education the concept of 'desk' may have changed from passive to active: a desk may be primarily a display-and-control station in a telecommuncation-telecomputation system -- and its most vital part may be the cable ('umbilical cord') that connects it, via a wall socket, into the procognitive utility net."

Bush's concept of an intelligent desk has evolved into a desktop. And in between the average person and the information he or she seeks are media, increasingly Open Media, that helps them organize the new world they face. Search engines, Web sites like this one, messaging systems (ICQ, AIM, Hotlines) Weblogs (like www.camworld.com), individual Web pages, movie and consumer sites (www.imdb.com, www.deja.com) research and software sites -- their mission is remarkably uniform -- sensemaking.

Stefik estimates the average number of links off an individual Web page to be about thirteen. Individual searching makes sense for the technologically skilled, but most people who set off on the Net and the Web in search of information quickly get lost. "Even completely automated web walkers, which hop across web pages at electronic speeds, now take days or even weeks to sweep through all the documents on the Internet," writes Stefik.

Though the number of documents online grows steadily, much of the information on the Net and the Web never gets indexed. Stekif believes that as digital-rights technology becomes more widely integrated into the Net infrastructure, more documents will be available on the Net for a fee.

Meanwhile, Open Media are becoming increasingly important in helping make people aware of the news and information available to them. Weblogs in particular are being increasingly reliable, trusted sources of information as well as new focal points for growing, enduring and increasingly influential communities.

No wonder Open Media are the premier medium of the young, and are also gaining audience, market share and revenue.

Comments

Re:Am I missing something?

[BrianW]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

(FX: Evil laugh)

Re:/. is the 'sensemaker'

[KahunaBurger]

Of course, with very few exceptions, the actual news on /. is simply pointers to an old-school media source that has done all the work for you. I don't think /. is really open media, its a discussion group that rehashes closed media with even more filtering. (good thing too)

-Kahuna Burger

Make it stop.

[RISCy Business]

Please. Make it stop. Katz is going too damn far.

I'm falling out of my chair laughing at his pompous incompetent attitude. This from someone who has to 'geek-ize' everything and proclaim himself a saviour of the geek, who gleefully takes every word they said on one topic and uses it in a book, without giving them any opprotunity to say they didn't want it, and without paying them, because it's 'so important' yadda yadda.

Bunch of overblown overhyped crap is what it is, reminiscient of AOL marketing. "With Jon Katz, it's easy to be a geek!" "The New Katz 5.0 - Now able to stereotype nerds as well!" Bah. Slashdot's fallen quite a distance.

Open this, open that, world is evil, geeks will rule all, interaction, the "information superhighway", data explosion, etcetera, ad infinitum. Does Katz's jaw ever stop spewing forth such cliche and ignorant crap? Can I bribe him into shutting up?

Ever since that Hellmouth crap, Katz has spewed nothing but eschewed self-important crap in line with whatever current moronic trend in networking/internet/stereotyping is. I'm getting damn sick of this crap wasting valuable bandwidth because one man can't get enough of himself, namely, Katz.

If Rob and Co. really have editorial control, then editorial Katz back to the 2-bit rags he used to write for - this isn't a man who belongs on the Internet, nor should be allowed near a word processor, obviously.

=RISCy Business - flames not bothered with

Re:How fitting

[MostlyHarmless]

:-)

Except I think this would just fall under the general category of "meta", which is already in the jargon file. Otherwise, we would also have to make a separate entry for meta-flames (flaming people who generate too much flamage), meta-stories (stories about stories), etc.

Do we know what information we want?

[SandsOfTime]

Open Media use new forms of information architecture to permit people to define, seek and use the information they want. Closed media operate by permitting a handful of individuals to select information and distribute it, in the hopes that people will want and buy it.

1. Do we always know what information we want? And is that a good thing? The danger of defining our own filters is that sometimes the most useful information is the kind I never would have put into a list of "what I want to hear about" because I don't grasp its importance until after I read it.

2. How many people are going to "select" to purposely view ads? Probably not many, so how do providers of Open Information make their money? By charging the consumer directly for the service? Are there any successful examples of this so far?

3. I'd like to hear a few specific examples of Open Media. If Closed Media allow a handful of individuals to pre-filter information, then that sounds like almost all media to me. What is Open Media then, just a search engine? Or is Open Media something that doesn't exist yet?

Mountains Out of Molehills.

[Alarmist]

Katz is really making too much out of a simple issue. The "open media" revolution of which he speaks is really nothing more than millions of people in the industrialized world speaking their minds.

Katz talks about the impact of "open media", but only mentions en passant that its impact is limited to those who have regular access to the Internet and who seek out such sources. Many people are content to go no farther than their radio or TV for news. In developing countries (and still, in many developed ones), some people go no farther than friends and family for current news.

No strangleholds on information access are being broken. Many major news sites on the Web are related in some way to real-world news providers that are in turn owned by larger conglomerates. Unsurprisingly, the corporations that hoodwink and confound us in the real world are trying to do so in the virtual one. The only difference in this regard is that in the virtual world, it's much easier to hear an individual's opinion.

The virtual world can be likened to a vast, long street lined with shops. Billboards and salesmen are everywhere, hawking their wares much as they do in reality. Large media companies dispense the news as normal, and the politicians make their presence felt by regulating the way the street operates, even though few of them have yet ventured onto it.

Also on this street, jostling passersby and one another, are millions of people wearing sandwich boards and ranting about their topics of choice. Some of those people have formed enclaves (some more exclusive than others), where favorite topics are bandied about, flame wars started, and inside jokes kept alive.

Jon, the virtual world is really not that different from the real world. If there is such a thing as "open media", the only reason it is more visible in the virtual world is because it's easier to self-publish there.

This isn't revolutionary. In the long run, it may not even be important. But it is interesting, and it is useful.

Re:Mountains Out of Molehills.

[swordgeek]

"Katz is really making too much out of a simple issue."

But of course! It's his way. (or rather, His Way!) He's only reported on two topics I can think of where his hype and alarmist attitude were even close to justified.

Jon seems absolutely desperate to make every aspect of the 'internet culture' unique, novel, fearsome to the old guard, and endangered. Sad but true, there's not that much new under the sun.

Friends not enemies

[Jon Peterson]

"Closed media operate by permitting a handful of individuals to select information and distribute it, in the hopes that people will want and [to] buy it. "

I think this is really the crux of it. This is old media in a sentence. And, as I see it, there is no problem with this happily co-existing with Open Media. Sure, one or the other might lose or gain some mindshare, but it's not, as those Linux distro millionaires like to say, a zero sum game.

By permitting a handful of individuals to select information, you are doing most people a big favour. Compare the Camel book to c.l.p.m. Compare a well written Linux HowTo with a slashdot 'ask slashdot' thread.

Each of the Open forms has strengths and (severe) weaknesses, and likewise the Closed form. They complement each other.

I don't see the big conflict here, only a series of small ones as we work out just what kind of information is better handled in either an Open or Closed way.

I will continue to buy the writings of those individuals who have an unusual ability to select and present information and ideas. I will continue to read with interest my mailing lists, my slashdot posts, and my other sources of open discussion. There's no conflict.

Re:Slashdot as Open Media?

[11223]

And we know exactly how much people like slashdot moderation.

Indeed, slashdot is the perfect example of this Open Media - except the Open Media is so full of Closed Minds (as in a common slashdot slogan) that it's hardly open at all. Honest opinions get termed as "flamebait", and people restructure their views to the point where it no longer conflicts to the community.

Indeed, slashdot is the perfect example. When people learn to play the community game of slashdot by adjusting to become a well-formed poster, they lose their original opinions (which may have been "flamebait" or just plain "overrated") and turn into a member of the community sheep. We are, as I said above, losing our ability to think individually by letting other people (the moderators) think for us.

Re:But can you trust it?

[Mike@AP]

Before I start, here's some Full Disclosure: I work for a 151-year-old non-profit news wire service. Though personally still a relative youngin', and despite having been at an online news site in the past, I now personify old-school journalism.

Now, fully realizing I'm defending my livelihood, there is still a place for true journalism -- stories hunted down by actual reporters. Yes, the Internet is the greatest repository of information ever built. Heck, I use it every day in my work. But quite frankly, the Internet doesn't have everything.

The data on the Internet is generated by people. People are the true sources of information, and they don't always spill absolutely everything online. For example, I cover a certain large sofware company here in Seattle. Said company does not provide the public with every tidbit of information that it has. Public records and competitors' info helps, but that's not the entire story, either. The true story about that company rests with the people who run it and work there. To get the best information on that company, you have to go and talk to them, pick their brains, and do a bit of analysis to put the pieces together. That's what I do.

Plus, not everyone can go and ask Larry Ellison just what the &#*@! he was thinking when he had people root through other people's garbage. They pay reporters, via their subscription dollars or ad revenues, to ask for them.

In fact, the story about Oracle's garbage-tripping adventures (to sum up, they hired private investigators to go through the trash of a pro-Microsoft trade group in Washington among other things) didn't come from aggregation of data online, but from a very good reporter who caught wind of something, hit the streets, and tracked the sucker down. He did a damn fine job, and his story and Oracle's subsequent admission -- caused by that very story -- started an intelligent debate on corporate spying and ethics.

Yes, the media needs to do a far better job of data aggregation and "sensemaking." But in the end, I fervently believe that the public is best served by having reporters out there finding out the stuff that's NOT on the Internet.

One more thing, since I'm on the soapbox. I agree with the previous posts that, when it comes right down to it, you have to trust the reporters who bring you the news. Yes, there are reporters out there who break that trust, just as there are software coders who may violate the GPL by altering Linux and not providing their changes to the rest of the community at large. But for the most part, no matter who they work for, I have found that most reporters would rather have their limbs hacked off with butter knives than succumb to any sort of corporate spoon-feeding of news. I know of reporters who have quit in disgust when asked to play down stories, and they're usually quickly snapped up by other news agenices with more scruples.

Bottom line, individuals just can't do everything. There's just not enough hours in the day. So just as you elect representatives to make laws on your behalf, you pay newspapers and other news organizations to go find stuff out on your behalf, and you vote on the quality of that information with your wallet.

OK, that's it. Thanks for listening.

Open is more bias anyhow

[BenHmm]

ok full disclosure: I'm a journalist on The Times of London, owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The problem here is more one of a perception of conspiricy. Katz (and many many others) seem to think that because news or opinions are chosen by Men In Suits it is inherently dodgy.

This just isn't true. We in newspapers choose the news we print based on newsworthyness to our audience: in national papers that means a national audience, in specialist press (Slashdot, say) that's a specialist audience.

This means a few things:

1. Just because you might think something is important, and it doesn't get printed, DOES NOT mean there is a movement to keep that news secret.
It probably isn't either true or interesting

2. The content of the media is NOT controlled by its owners. Murdoch? Never met/heard from/been influenced by him. No one here has. The owners just don't have the time.

3. In general, the journalist does know more about the subject than the average punter: that's what makes them more placed to choose what is important for people to read.

4. We also have a duty - and it is taken seriously - to be bias free and fair.

5. Conversely, the average website contributor just doesn't: Open media written by the many with have too small a signal/noise ratio to be of any use.

reading epinions or deja may be fun, but I'd rather get a review from an expert in the field, fully informed and dedicated to fair reporting

Irony

[Robotech_Master]

How ironic that someone who has such a hard time making sense writes about sensemaking...

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

It's funny that the more columns Jon Katz writes, the more he seems to keep saying the same thing...
--

How fitting

[MostlyHarmless]

To top off those great Fourth of July fireworks with some Jon Katz flame-a-thon fireworks.

There is just one thing I want from slashdot, and that is to have a thoughtful discussion on what Jon Katz is trying to say. Is that too much to ask? Instead, the article will be filled with "Jon Pu^H^HKatz doesn't belong on /.!" How about we focus on the real issue he's trying to raise instead of mindlessly flaming?

Re:How fitting

[Golias]

There is just one thing I want from slashdot, and that is to have a thoughtful discussion on what Jon Katz is trying to say. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, it is.

The problem is not that we (by we, I mean those of us who are critical of Katz) don't take him seriously, but rather that most of the issues he has been bringing up recently ("corporatism" vs. privacy and freedom; the human impact of the "information age"; etc.) are issues that the average /.er has already pondered and reached conclusions about when we were very young. It is just not new to us anymore... and he writes it all with a tone and style that makes it look like he believes he is teaching us radical new paradigms, rather than re-hashing festering old issues.

I'm starting to suspect that he either does not read the comments to his stories, or ignores all negative criticism (justifying it as "needing a thick skin" to face all the flames), because it is becoming very clear that he does not really know who his audience is. If his columns appeared in Time or a local newspaper, I might be saying "wow, he really does a good job of explaining things to people who know nothing about current technology".

When continues to emit bogons like "Open Media", "Corporatism", "Chick-clickers", and now "Sensemakers", even though he has been criticized and mocked time and time again by the bulk of people responding who obviously see through his attempts to organize percieved trends to fit his model of the Open Source movement, it makes it clear that he values no opinion in this "open" discussion nearly as highly as his own.

There. I'm done ranting, and yes it did feel a little cathartic.

Re:Open/Closed - It is irrelevant

[w3woody]

This same thing will eventually happen to many Internet information sources as the cost of technology, marketing in a crowded market and talent to run and attract an audience requires capital beyond the average startup company.

Except... First, unlike radio and television which only has a fixed number of bands to offer in a particular outlet and thus can be monopolized, setting up a new Internet "broadcasting center" (web site) can be done with virtual pocket change: about $30/month or so, unless you don't mind Geocities ads.

Television and radio can become monopolies because the FCC will only grant so many television stations and radio stations in a given area. The Internet, however, is virtually infinite.

Second, while it may be true that setting up a first class organization costs a good chunk of change, the same can be said about creating a good operating system: the staggering manpower costs required to create a good first class operating system is absolutely phenominal, and beyond the amount of capital that can be reasonably raised by a startup.

Yet we have Linux. We have people who are willing to donate the sort of time and effort required to create a first-class operating system for free, outside the traditional command/control structures you see at a Microsoft.

And with the Internet it's the same thing: often the most interesting web sites with the most useful information and news are set up by individuals who donate their time for free to cover events or technologies which they are personally passonate about.

I'm not sure where Television and Radio would be if it only cost about $200 to set up a pirate television broadcasting center that could reach the same geographical region that ABC could. But I suspect the landscape would be far different than the monopolistic media outlets that are currently out there.

Likewise, I suspect the Internet won't reduce itself to yahoo.com, aol.com and news.com being the ABC, CBS and NBC of the Internet.

It's just too easy to turn to another station.

So is Slashdot a form of "Closed Media"?

[sleight]

If we are to take Jon's definition as rote, "Closed media operate by permitting a handful of individuals to select information and distribute it, in the hopes that people will want and buy it", then doesn't that make Slashdot a form of Closed Media? Hundreds of posts are submitted daily (or is it more now?) to Slashdot but only handful see the light of day.

Is this really all that different from the traditional press? Stories frequently reach the press because someone informs a member of the press. Slashdot merely provides a convenient mechanism for the public to notify the press, in this case Slashdot's staff, of a potential story.

From that standpoint, does that really make Slashdot all that different from a conventional newspaper -- complete with Jon's commentary. They even get some of their funding from advertisements posted on their pages.

My head hurts

[vinay]

"The grownups don't like it one bit."

I'm not going to completely slam this article, Jon, but what I am going to say is that "grownups" aren't this big evil that starts nasty corporations to keep us "individuals" down. For godsakes.

The only issue I have with this article is your continuing over-zealousness. Yes, sites like /. are excellent news sources, but they don't produce much news of their own. They get their news from what you have dubbed "closed" media sources. For example, if I want to do research on 3rd world countries, I doubt I'm going to have a whole lot of luck finding a webpage filled with news of (say) somalia that somebody maintains on his own. He's going to want compensation, otherwise, he's not going to have the time nor the energy to make the site worth anything.

My point is, in this "information explosion," "closed" media is just as important as "open" media (to use your buzzwords). In fact, I'd argue that the latter couldn't exist without the former.

Another point, why are americans more info hungry than the rest of the world? I'd be willing to bet money that the english and the spanish and the like are just as information hungry as we are.

One last point: You seem to place yourself as part of the "open" media. Where in "open" media does a comment like, "If you want to write about stuff that concerns you, get your own column." fit in? Isn't "open" media all about what the consumer wants?

-V

Open/Closed - It is irrelevant

[thesparkle]

Once upon a time ago, there was more diversity in radio programming. Why? Because it was a new medium, there were fewer restrictions and programmers were trying to find an audience. Because of that, you had a variety of programs and diverse personalities that reflected America and its' growing pains.

Then there was television. Again, TV station owners, producers and directors tried anything to get people to first buy one of those boxes and then turn the darn thing on. Strange, live programming was the only thing available and on air personalities regularly reminded viewers that the technology was new and who knew what would happen.

Both mediums began that way and both mediums were eventually formulated for maximum audience penetration and ratings. Both mediums were eventually controlled by singular entities determined to controll a "stall" of outlets which would giveway to the media companies we have today. FCC rules have been relaxed to allow for this centralized control.

The result is a handful of media companies whose products strangely resemble each other. Their news offerings duplicate opinions rather than factual information gathering. Their programming runs industry trends (gameshows or westerns for instance) rather than innovative product offerings.

This same thing will eventually happen to many Internet information sources as the cost of technology, marketing in a crowded market and talent to run and attract an audience requires capital beyond the average startup company.
Online media outlets with suffucient name recognition and subscriber lists will be acquired by ever larger growning companies, some in existance and some new. Then the previous experience of radio and television will be repeated.

Wonderful.

Re:Open/Closed - It is irrelevant

[Wah]

Can you afford to run 1,000 simultaneous downloads/streaming of a 7MB news MPG?

No, but I can afford a link to one that does.

You and I, for instance could not even aford to run Slashdot from our homes. Sure we could run something more watered down, but would it be interesting enough?

Given Moore's Law, and the similar one that seems to be covering bandwidth, I don't see too much problem running a fairly large and interesting media source out of one's home. Given the ability to replicate news sources and link to content, the media landscape can become quite varied. There will always be the AOSheep, and the ones that just like it, but it will be much, much easier to diverge from the mainstream and chill in the eddys.

The largest dangers to a varied (i.e. good) media, 1) legislation , 2) the hardware solution (TW giving AOL packets higher priority/blocking other ISP traffic), 3) legislation.

(and of course the whole Napster/DeCSS/DVD/Copyright/IP thing)

As this Open Media thing gets started, more and more people will find their niche, but most of the older ones will have their cracks too deep in their couch grooves to escape. I think this is already happening to some extent. The major networks have realized that retaining younger viewers is just too expensive (they can't compete with the rampant creativity of the Natalie Portman set) and will concentrate on their Boomers. When the boomers are gone, so will most of the Old Media's power. Except that by then all the smart money will have shifted anyway, and we'll have a new boss, just like the old boss. But we won't get fooled again, that's for sure... :-)
--

Re:Open/Closed - It is irrelevant

[anonymous cowerd]

Suppose all your favorite web sites get bought out, one after another, by the big vanilla corporate conglomerates. Suppose these conglomerates debase the content of these sites so that they serve corporate profits rather than your interests. Will they not cease to be your favorites? Won't you go looking elsewhere for something more congenial to your tastes? Sure you will. The difference between old media like radio and the Internet is, when none of the local stations any longer play the music you want to hear, you simply can't start up a new station featuring material more to your tastes. Whereas, fifteen minutes after Microsoft buys out slashdot and changes all the content to what they call "pro-innovation" stuff, a hundred disgusted ex-readers will fire up their own weblogs to fill the gap.

The big difference is the cost of the technology. Once again everything boils down to dollars and cents. How much does it cost to make a TV show or a radio show? Far, far more than I will ever be willing or able to spend. The great expense is the crucial factor which ensures that these media are controlled by giant corporations; and in turn, because they are controlled by these huge capitalist entities, the content tends to be censored, biased and homogenized. And besides the cost barrier that is so hard to hurdle, legally, these media are closed up tight as a drum. In my town there was a guy who broadcast his own program (some odious far-right rubbish, but as Voltaire (actually not him but someone else) famously said, etc., etc.) over the radio spectrum; one day the Feds came, confiscated all his transmitters, knocked down his antenna, and hauled him off to jail.

How much does it cost to have a web site? It costs the cost of a computer to compose upon - you can get an old but adequate computer for this purpose for as little as $350 - plus the cost of a connection to the internet, which at the most should be no more than $20 a month. (In addition to this you have to consider the cost of providing your site with content, but I'm going to assume that you write the content yourself, and the pleasure of self-expression compensates for the cost in your time and effort.) How much does it cost to host a web site on your own server? Again, for starters, that $350 computer will suffice, together with as little as $55 per month for a DSL line.

And thus far, it isn't generally illegal for you to broadcast your stuff over the Internet. Don't bet on it staying that way forever! Even as I type, a coalition of mass media heavies together with police state puritans currently strive with enormous effort and diabolical and shameless dishonesty ("Internet pr0n threatens to molest your children by remote control! News at eleven...") to seal off that loophole to low-budget public speech.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

True, but there IS a downside:

[Maeryk]

Open Media is a nice idea, BUT: as far as the internet goes, anyone who can code HTML can open up an "information site".. the problem comes in checkign one's sources, in the believability.. I can find sites on the net that are as stable and pretty as slashdot, yet talk only about the fact that life exists on mars, built pyramids, and seeded the earth for food production (us).

There is no standard for comparison on the net.. ANYONES ideas/ideals/wacko beliefs are "correct" and its increasingly difficult to lump together things that share the same root to get differing opinion.

It used to be you went to a library, or book store, and looked up "Religion" and had 40 or 50 books staring you in the face which you could read, contrast, etc, most of them by authors that at least had SOME form of editing or review before they wrote that book. But if you look up "religion" in Webcrawler, etc, you get a bewildering number of hits, that no human could access and adequately cross reference in a reasonable time frame. Then add the fact that fully half these hits are personal opinion, or oneline blurbs on a web page, and you find out WHY open media is going to take a long time to get where you want it (and I want it) to go.

The means is there.. what we need is a standard of some sort.. maybe a volunteer review board who look over stuff and put a stamp of approval on it.. sort of like the ratings system here... I am able to read the -2 posts, but why would I want to? I trust my fellow /.ers to be responsible about their moderation, and have very seldom been let down by this.

I do agree though, its time for the 1% of the people who own 90% of the worlds media outlets to stop telling me who the best candidate is, what I should eat for my own good, and why I should consider myself a monster for not crying over their "child in danger" piece of the week. Nothing annoys me more than a blow dried news anchor or rolling stone author talking down to me about computers, or anything else I can almost guarantee I know more about than they do. The Media is currently written for 8 year olds, and that HAS to change.

maeryk

"Open Media" sites...

[Robotech_Master]

Well, even given that I disagree slightly with your definition of Open Media...how about Themestream.com? It lets anyone publish anything they want, and pays by popularity (currently a dime a hit, but I expect that to drop eventually when they leave "preview mode")...hence, only the people who write stuff people read make money.

I wrote an article about the Princess Mononoke DVD situation and decided to donate the proceeds to Nausicaa.net. It got posted to Slashdot, and boom!. Over $182 worth of donations. I also write a column about the Palm that makes a respectable amount of money.
--

Makes sense to me

[ch-chuck]

There's a new occupational niche: "SenseMaker", aka "The Answer Man", "Mr. Know it All" (incl. specialized practices like "Computer Guru", "Alpha Geek" and "Tom & Ray"), direct descendant of the tribal witch Dr., Medicine Man, Shaman, Prophet, philosopher, Royal Advisor, Pope, President, what have you.

Job Requirements: Ability to survive the total perspective vortex, take sips from the info firehose and deal with 7,835 emails/day. Also index, catalog and sort all web pages, make optimum purchasing decisions. Ability to interpret and explain abstract scientific phenomenon and technology to the bewildered uneducated masses a plus. Required to understand and interface well with personal of divers cultural backgrounds.
The successful candidate will be well briefed on late breaking news events and have the capacity to coordinate departments and act accordingly toward maximizing stockholder value. Some public speaking required.

Re:Reputation and identity

[KahunaBurger]

I should add: in the old media, there was little way to know if information was complete, or assess the reputation of those providing the information and so on. In the new media, there's a greater ability to do that - in real time, and with real time feedback.

while the realtime feedback may not have been there, I highly disagree that "old media" gives less ways of assessing reputation. Media competed with each other, and were glad to pounce on the "forgotten story" or point out failings.

Sadly, I use the past tense because of the state of media mergers in the US. In Boston, I think three or four of the top radio stations are all owned by the same company. Almost all of the small community newspapers are put out by one large group which also puts out the "competing" TAB. And they're looking at relaxing the rule against one co owning a newspaper and a radio station in the same market. Don't even get me started on TV.

Its this merging of ownership that I think endangers old and new media sources alike, rather than the "closed or open" media idea.

-Kahuna Burger

Re:Information filtering

[11223]

Troll vs. Troll - I'll bite:

Still I think this kind of thing is going to come about - most people prefer convenience over issues like privacy, and one thing this kind of service will be, is convenient.

Sure, and having information stuffed down your throat by a TV is also convienient. That's what 2000 channels were supposed to be for. Does anybody want the internet to be like that?

Convience above all. That's indeed what our culture has come to, and that's why the Web is nothing but another TV, because people don't take the time to sort out the information and just let it fall in. People get trapped by the online equvalents of the Psychic Friends Network, and just believe anything that falls in their lap.

I will explain what it is about.

[streetlawyer]

[ahem]

Slashdot is the most obvious example of "Open Media" (at least Katz mentions is in this article; he didn't seem to in the previous one)

Slashdot is owned by andover.net, which in turn is owned by VA Linux.

Neither Slashdot, andover.net, nor VA Linux currently make a profit (still less, a positive operating cashflow).

Therefore, the corporate future of the publisher of this article is dependent for the time being on its ability to raise capital from the market.

Since it is highly unlikely that a bank or bond house would finance a small firm with such strongly negative cashflow, "the capital market" in this context, means the equity market and the venture capital market.

The equity market, and the VC market, when looking at Internet/technology plays, are attempting to find the "Next Big Thing" to invest in.

Therefore, anything that helps to convince people that Slashdot might be the "future of media" directly helps the company to raise funds and to survive as a corporate entity.

That's what these Jon Katz articles are about. Maybe I'm cynical, but on the other hand, would it not be surprising if nobody "called the attention" of potential investors in VA Linux to this piece of analysis.

Of course, if the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal or Newsweek magazine, or Slate were to publish an article directly relevant to its own commercial position, or the position of its parent company, they might publish a disclosure statement, drawing attention to that fact and allowing readers to mentally take the potential conflict of interest into account. But I suppose that's an old-fashioned "closed media" way of doing things, and the new way is to "form a community and allow them to decide what they need to know".

The clue is in the intro: "they'll hook consumers up to the information they want and need and find new ways to make money" Not disclosing conflicts of interest isn't exactly a "new way to make money", but it's been held in low regard for a while and might be due for a revival.

Make sure you remember to buy lots of VA Linux shares, kids.

--streetlawyer, older and wiser than you are

disclaimer: I have no material interest in slashdot, andover.net or VA Linux. I have always been a fan of Jon's journalism, but not of editorial policy on slashdot. I think the problems of conflict of interest are likely to severely affect all of the "open Media", if, indeed, Open Media is a valid concept

/. is the 'sensemaker'

[Moderation abuser]

The media of the future is going to be /. or maybe K5 like systems. I already get far more *useful* information from /. and K5. It'll spread to the general populace.

Course, there's a load of junk here too but at least you have the chance to get rid of some of it.

sensemakers? give me a break

[kootch]

any time you have someone organize information, they are putting a subjective stamp and assigning value to it so that it is heirarchically organized in some shelving system.

forget organizing information. neural network it. develop better searching mechanisms. and spare us the Open Media fluff... Open Media such as /. is not actually Open Media... it's just hidden corporatism.

Re:Slashdot as Open Media?

[NaughtyEddie]

Have you yourself succumbed? Or do you see yourself as the only true honest person posting on Slashdot?

I post regularly, and I have unorthodox opinions for Slashdot (e.g. I think Linux is the most boring piece of software ever devised). I have on occasion been moderated down unfairly. I have also been moderated up to my surprise. On other occasions, I have posted a little slice of my life - pure experience - and they always get moderated up. But I have never posted a dishonest opinion, and I never will.

But the one lesson I've learned - which is the one way I have "restructured my views" - is that it's not what you say, it's the way that you say it.

Anyway, your comment got moderated to +4, which, ironically, completely defuses your statements ;)

Yep, and look what it's like!

[streetlawyer]

Closed Media sites -- Salon, Slate, Inside.com -- struggle with the idea that evolutionary forms of media aren't about delivering opinions, commentary, pre-selected and reported stories involving chosen agendas. Quite the opposite; they're about permitting individuals -- using the most interactive aspects of new technology -- to shape their own information needs and values.

So in other words, Old Closed Media used to be able to make you think, and bring you face to face with new opinions, while New Open Media allow you to avoid anything that might disturb you and remain as ignorant and bigoted as ever you were. For example; slashdot, a great forum for zealots to slap one another on the back, with all dissidents moderated down. Curious use of the term "open", but there you go.

Re:Explosion? Hah!

[Golias]

If there is an information explosion in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it...

Seriously, I don't think there is an explosion of information at all. The pre-Internet days were already brimming over with more information than any one person could hope to process anyway.

What the net has offered is an explosion of repitition. For example, a Google search of buffy the vampire slayer this morning produced 120,999 hits. I like that show, but is there really enough to say about it that you could fill over 120 thousand "pages" with it? Half of those hits were probably just copies of the drinking game (drink if Buffy's bra strap is showing, drink if Cordy gives unwelcome fashion advice, etc.)

The information boom happened in the 17th Centry, not the 20th. Since then we have just been inventing ways of getting our news faster.

Re:Information filtering

[Jon Erikson]

Errrm, that wasn't a troll BTW. I honestly think that this sort of thing will come about as more and more information moves onto the net and people start to use it as their sole source of information.

Sure, and having information stuffed down your throat by a TV is also convienient. That's what 2000 channels were supposed to be for. Does anybody want the internet to be like that?

Not the same. 2000 channels means that again you have to search for the stuff you want and end up missing half of it. What I'm talking about is the equivalent of a single channel just filled with the stuff that matches your profile - very convenient indeed.

And no, I certainly don't want the net like that, but given the amount of people using services like AOL or FreeServe who never venture out of the service's own "areas", I'd say that many other people would want this sort of thing. And not everyone has the time to track down every little thing they want, especially when they might not even know of its existance.

---
Jon E. Erikson

New this new that... is it arse.

[MosesJones]

Newspapers, millions of pieces of information and they act as the filter to you. Read alot of newspapers from all over the globe and get all of the information.

This isn't a new idea, this is an old idea with the word "Open" put infront of it.

Just because people put an "e" or "Open" or any other buzzword of the day infront of a word doesn't mean that the concept or actions have changed.

Re:Slashdot as Open Media?

[ka9dgx]

Indeed, slashdot is the perfect example of this Open Media - except the Open Media is so full of Closed Minds (as in a common slashdot slogan) that it's hardly open at all. Honest opinions get termed as "flamebait", and people restructure their views to the point where it no longer conflicts to the community.

I still hold that linux isn't the answer for everything (flamebait??), Microsoft still sucks(consensus), and software is too damned brittle(offtopic??).

--Mike--

Talking Headline

[Golias]

I think your post should be modded up for the headline alone. What a great use of a pop culture reference. I love it when the subject line says almost as much as the post.

I often wonder if journalists should be allowed to write their own headlines instead of a copy editor slapping one on. Some of them might be as clever and inventive as you were this time.

Sorry for getting off-topic. I just thought it was very efficient writing. The various Haiku trolls around here could learn something from Szoup.

Re:Information filtering

[11223]

Sure - just give me stuff that looks like stuff I want, and then silently twist it until it looks different.

Slashdot was once like that. Once upon a time, there was good news here for people looking to stay on top of the software ball. Now, it's just "Linux rocks/Win(DOS|~1|.*) sucks" drivel, over and over and over (plus Katz). This isn't a good development at all. Instead, it makes people who are more closed-minded and narrow that they won't be able to see outside of their own perspective!

Re:Look What the Katz Dragged In...

[KahunaBurger]

You know, I really think Jon gets too much shit for what he does. People need to lighten up. His articles and comments are attacked, not because of their content or relavence, but because some time long ago, a few people were grossly critical of an article or two and Katz bashing became the cool thing to do.

Funny, I thought people bashed Katz collumns because they were way too long, sometimes incoherent and overuse buzzwords. I have never noticed Katz bashing being "cool" but as red herrings go to make people embarrassed to voice their opinions, its a pretty good one. Good job.

And as a person who hasn't filtered Katz, its because he is occasionally good at coming up with a decent topic, which /.ers can run with as a good conversation. In these cases, the good bits of the thread discussion are usually unrelated to Kazt's ramblings and are just inspired by the teaser paragraph. The actual writing itself is rarely worthwhile.

Oh and the "Katz sucks!" "No, you're just jealous" threads can be fun once in a long while, too.

-Kahuna Burger

Slashdot as Open Media?

[ka9dgx]

Isn't Slashdot a form of Open Media? The responses get rated by other readers, and a group consensus is formed over time. The "first post" wave of people gets moderated down, and what's deemed informative, etc.. goes up. So, here we are, it's already being done.
--Mike--

Re:Look What the Katz Dragged In...

[Golias]

If Katz were that worthless, everyone would have bannished his articles from their displays, via Slashdot preferences. The fact that they linger around to read everything he ever writes (even if they claim it's just for a good laugh), says a lot.

Personally, I keep hanging around hoping he will come up with something as interesting as the Hellmouth series. Something that, agree with it or not, introduces a perspective that is under-reported elsewhere and prompts lively debate about our culture.

This ain't it.

Open Media does not exist

[J. Chrysostom]

Any kid with a computer has access to vast amounts of the world's information archives, perhaps the most frightening reality of the Internet to most older Americans and political figures.

Precisely because all of them can read the online papers, and online libraries --- they have access to the "Closed Media."

Katz is right about the need for filtering of information. And what Katz calls the "Closed Media" provides precisely that. In today's convienience-driven society only "closed media" can deliver information without hassle. "Open media" outlets require too much effort, and will be disregarded by the masses. Sorry John.

Reputation and identity

[KahunaBurger]

You trust information that comes from people and organisations that have built up trust over time, and could just as easily lose trust very quickly.

Er, how is this a product of the "new" media? I trust most information that comes from the Boston Globe, though I don't assume that it is complete. I give less trust to the information from the Boston Herald, because they have built up a reputation with me as sensationalistic. I check out the Mass News once in a while to see what the bile filled liars are ranting about this week.

And since at least the first two have far more to lose from a massivly incorrect or premature story than any web page, I can count on them having more controls in place.

Trust and reputation are what real old school journalism is about. Thats why wading through the data glut of the internet will never compare to reading a respectable paper. The good thing the internet gives us is the ability to delve deeper into issues when we feel that we may not be getting the whole story due to lack of mainstream interest or cultural conflict.

-Kahuna Burger

Am I missing something?

[BrianW]

I've read through the article (yes, all of it), and I've not been left with any impression or opinion, I'm no better informed than I was, and I can't help but feel that it was a waste of my time.

Just what are these Jon Katz articles supposed to be about?

Re:Am I missing something?

[BrianW]

Yeah, but they're not reading this crap...

Re:Am I missing something?

[BrianW]

Like you could...

Re:Am I missing something?

[BrianW]

Yeah, but there's no way you could kick it...

Re:Am I missing something?

[BrianW]

Even if it was, you still couldn't, 'cos I'm well 'ard, and you ain't...

Explosion? Hah!

[deefer]

If there'es _ever_ one statement by the media on the 'net that _really_ annoys the living shit out of me, it's , as tens of millions come online, popular awareness of an "information explosion"
There is _NOT_ an information explosion going on, there is a DATA explosion going on. Data is defined as raw facts, information is those facts sorted, collated and presented in a useful form.
In fact, I'd say there is an "information implosion" going on right now - there is more data, but information is harder to find, as there is more chaff being added to the wheat of the internet.
Do a web search on just about anything these days; you'll be guaranteed at least one pr0n link, a whole bunch of useless sites put up to carry banner ads, and somewhere, finally, the information you wanted.
I'm really looking forward to the next set of search engines; curren "innovations" such as Google are making progress, but there have been no real leaps and bounds made to turn raw data into information.

Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.

Here's some helpful information

[Bad Mojo]

1) Just because there is a world full of information, doesn't mean you need to sort and access all of it.

2) There are millions of items of information you will never need to know.

3) You will not see everything or know everything before you die.

4) You should learn to make sense of things you witness firsthand before you take the word of another person.

5) No matter how much you trust someone else to tell you something (be it `sensemakers' or the media at large), don't trust them as much as you trust what you know from your own experience.

6) Realize that when group X tells group Y what you know and gets it wrong, that what group X tells you about group Y is also suspect.

I'm sure this is redundant and simple, but I find most people don't know how to do this. Then when they hit the net and get inundated with info, they fold faster than superman on laundry day.

Bad Mojo

Re:Here's some helpful information

[carlos_benj]

5) No matter how much you trust someone else to tell you something (be it `sensemakers' or the media at large), don't trust them as much as you trust what you know from your own experience.

That's nice in theory, but the world is full of people who have interpreted their experiences in error. I am highly allergic to penicillin. Judging by my experience alone, penicillin is a deadly poison. I have to go outside of my personal experience to find that many people have been helped by the use of this 'poison'. If I were a doctor (or played one on TV) I would probably have occasion to prescribe or administer penicillin even though my own experience contraindicates its use.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say that something won't work even though others can do the same thing with appropriate results. We all tend to filter information based upon past experience, but we have to learn to recognize that tendency and investigate the claims that do not mesh with our filter. The trick is knowing which claims to selectively investigate so that we don't end up reinventing the wheel before we can learn anything new.

carlos

Katz-flambe, take two

[11223]

Katz, have you been reading a comic strip in the Chicago Tribune lately by the name of Non Sequiter? Particuarly the Sunday strips, where he talks about how people are overloaded with information? It sounds a lot like what you're saying here, but much more coherent.

The people who can't make sense of the explosion of information are the people who need a good sense of what to pay attention to and what to ingore. What we don't need is people to sort it out for them - we need to give them the ability to sort it out themselves.

Sensemakers should be the people themselves. Carl Sagan already wrote about it in his excellent book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

What we end up with when other people make sense of the explosion for us is a nation of people with dependent brains - people who cannot think on their own. People can be their own sensemakers - already, the smartest and well-informed are. The people who cannot make sense will get trapped by pseudoscience, speculation, and oughtright lies (and flamebait *cough* *cough*). We have to make the sense of it ourselves, so that those who don't make sense - only feed us more misinformation - don't win.

Alternatives to Moderation

[shoji]

Can I pose a question? If we're going to use Open Media distribution, questions about quality come immediately to the forefront-- if anything can be posted, how can we insure quality or usefulness? The answer we have now is user or editor moderation. How well do people think moderation works? What kind of moderation schemes seem effective? Are there other kinds of alternatives to moderation to ensure the quality of information from the news source? --j

Stop Making Sense

[Szoup]

The geeks have not discovered a new problem. How to find, handle, absorb, and use information is an eternal problem. Just because so much of it is now readily and easily available from your computer chair or recliner doesn't make it more difficult to manage, only much more important to do so.

However, this doesn't mean we have to go and start making up new words to fit the activity. Sensemaking...
---------------------------------- ---------

Information filtering

[Jon Erikson]

I suppose there is an ongoing process of increasing information on the net, although I'd hardly call it an explosion. The real "explosion" on the net seems to me to be in Geocities homepages rather than new style journalism, but the amount of information available on the net is going to increase.

Probably the real winners if this ideal ever comes to past are those services which can filter this flood of information and provide users with a summary of it that they can digest. After all, it's useless to have so much information available that you can't find anything you're after. Much like /. allows me to read about stuff I'm interested in that I wouldn't have seen otherwise, these services will allow people to customise profiles of what they want to know about.

Of course there are bad sides to this - if you only see what you're interested in it tends to reinforce the views and ideas that you already hold rather than challenge your beliefs. Whether this will be worse than the lowest common denominator style of mass media that most people get today is something we'll have to see.

And of course there are privacy issues with having such a personal profile available. Still I think this kind of thing is going to come about - most people prefer convenience over issues like privacy, and one thing this kind of service will be, is convenient.

---
Jon E. Erikson

But can you trust it?

[First Person]

The biggest advantage of 'traditional media' is that information is generally confirmed before publication. New media, in constrast, all too often must rely of rumors and shoddy confirmation to get the story out first.

Consider at how many stories on Slashdot have been withdrawn or severely modified after the original posting. This is a criticism, not condemnation. I appreciate the 'peer review' present here for technical issues which 'old media' cannot match.