Response to my Week #4 Questions

1. In chapter 2 in The Wealth of Networks, Benkler discusses how information production is non-rival and that we have a lack of information access because of copyright law and copyrighted information. But because we have access to free information via wikipedia and other websites, doesn’t that dismiss this idea? That now because of volunteers we have a whole plethora of information at our fingertips (literally)?

Response: Although I think that information via free websites such as wikipedia are helpful in a lot of ways, it is all secondary information. People that post on this website are getting their information from various articles, journals, novels, etc. In order to get primary information (which is what most people are looking for when researching a topic) most would have to subscribe to a journal or another form of information. As we discussed in class, this DOES make it difficult for people who want to access certain information to create their own information difficult. But, then again, without copyright law, and without the incentive to make money off of original information, many wouldn’t bother to come up with or post their information. In that case, information would be impossible to obtain. So, it’s either pay for information, or not have it available to you at all.

2. In chapter 3, Benkler talks about the relevancy and credibility of peer produced information. Although relevancy is subjective, how do we measure the credibility of content? To go along with the previous question, wouldn’t it be smart to pay someone to put information onto wikipedia rather than allowing volunteers to post whatever they want at will? Information coming from someone who is getting paid to post that information is more likely to be valid, right?

After thinking about this question, I came up with the conclusion that there is no need to pay anyone to write on wikipedia. We had a long conversation in class about wikipedia and how it is actually incredibly reliable. As one video tutorial of wikipedia showed, it takes mere minutes for people to clean up spam in wikipedia. Also, in order for information to stay in wikipedia, they must be able to prove that their information came from a reliable source. If this cannot be proven, the information promptly gets removed. So, when it comes to wikipedia, and possibly other “cumulative information” websites, they are actually quite credible and reliable.

3. In chapter 10 Benkler discusses networking. It made me think about job opportunities and how it is a good idea to be on social networks such as twitter so you can “follow” a company that you might be interested in working for. Job networking has certainly moved to the internet but will it be the primary source of networking in the future? What are the advantages and disadvantages if this does happen?

Although I think it will take a while for the internet to be the primary source of job networking, it is certainly moving in that direction. Especially for people that are trying to get jobs in the categories that we are working in (web publishing, interactive media, digital design, social networking, etc.) all we hear about is how we need to get our names out there on the internet, because companies are looking for people who blog or tweet consistently. However with other majors is might be unnecessary to be on a social network website. The advantages to this is it might be a lot easier to find available jobs on the internet. People are posting job opportunities on various websites everyday. Specifically, they post on website that someone they are looking to hire might visit every once in a while. A disadvantage would be that people in certain majors would find it unnecessary to have to search online for job opportunities or networking. Why would someone who is an English major feel the need to tweet to find a job? A medical major planning to become a doctor certainly shouldn’t have to join LinkedIn to “connect” with hospitals that are hiring. So like I said before, online job networking is becoming very prevalent, but it will take some time before it becomes a primary source.