blogmarch

I am choosing Option #1 for my paper, focusing on the issue of establishing reputation online.  Even though I chose this option, much of the impetus for choosing this topic came from reading “Against the Machine:  Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob,”  by Lee Siegel.

I have been fascinated by the idea of what “reputation” means in an online environment ever since I first heard about social software.  Much of contemporary criticism of the internet, specifically social software, focuses on the idea that reputation in online communities is based solely upon popularity, not necessarily on intelligence, creativity or originality.  In his book, Siegel points to 2.0 culture as the main destroyer of the meaning of reputation, a culture in which “simply being human has now become sufficient qualification for engagement in cultural expression” (Siegel 139).  With popularity replacing excellence as the sole criterion for success (Siegel 161) along with the anti-expert, anti-authority ethic that comes with the democratization of information, what does reputation mean in 2.0 culture?  And how is reputation established?  In The Cult of the Amateur, author Andrew Keen calls it the “Law of Digital Darwinism,” where it is the survival of the loudest and most opinionated. (Keen 15)

I decided to look at what reputation means online.  How do people get noticed among the over 100 million blogs (the actual number of blogs is disputed) that now exist?  Research into online reputation suggests that while most social networks start out with a kind of  “everyone’s voice is equal” ethic, those networks that stick around for awhile eventually establish some sort of set of rules and guidelines for contributing members, as well as some code of ethics, with certain members checking and balancing other members.  Clay Shirky, who writes extensively about internet culture and technology suggests that “group stucture is necessary to defend the group against itself.”  (A Group is its Own Worst Enemy)  In studying successful and longstanding social networks, such as Slashdot.com, it does become clear that while those members with the loudest voices and the strongest opinions might initially receive attention, they are not always the same voices that establish a good reputation, unless what they are saying is accepted as good and useful information by the community, especially that part of the community that has established good reputations themselves by posting regularly, posting non-anonymously, and obeying group norms.

What I have found is that in the good social networks, “good” in that they have been around for awhile, are widely respected and have many long-standing and new members, reputation does have meaning beyond popularity.  It does not appear to differ from the meaning of reputation in the culture at large. It is based upon merit, whatever that means to the specific group–usually some combination of intelligence, thoughtfulness, and respect for the culture and rules of the group.

I am still trying to figure out the “Where do librarians and Library 2.0 fit in” piece to all of this.  Moderators are a big part of the successful networks, so I am thinking this is going to be the link somehow…..

For anyone who is interested in the arguments between those in favor of the “wisdom of the crowds” idea  and those who oppose it, check out Digital Maoism:  the Hazards of the New Online Collectivism by Jaron Lanier, and the responses he got from heavy hitters in the tech and 2.0 worlds–Clay Shirky, Cory Doctorow, Douglas Rushkoff, Jimmy Wales…