[Sigia-l] On Evangelism, and How it Affects Enterprise

[Andrew McNaughton]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Listera wrote:

> "Andrew McNaughton" wrote:

> > Google is unlikely to highlight the fact that America conducted a
> > nuclear test today, because the media has not reported on it very
> > widely, though google has found stories about the issue.
>
> So, you are saying that Google is as likely/unlikely to provide the
> nuclear test story as human editors allow it to get into the news
> stream. Zero difference.

Google functions purely as an aggregator of news and the increase in
volume and reduction of human input leads to a greater homogenization.
This is already a distrubing trend in the media, particularly in the
larger media organisations.

> > It seems clear to me that this is an important story in light of the current
> > discussion of weapons of mass destruction, but something like what google have
> > built is not going to identify this as important.
>
> No, it will if human editors (as you claim) would do so.

It will if human editors uniformly do so.  Some proportion of human
editors will pick this up as a central issue.  Google never will.  Humans
likewise will report on what google tells them are the issues of the day,
just as most media base their selection of stories substantially on what
the other media are saying.  Google is not particularly distinct from this
process, but it takes it to a greater extreme. The net result is that it
becomes more difficult for less mainstream voices to be heard.  My point
is that google's current model reinforces this process, and my hope and
belief is that a different approach to the same problem could function as
a challenge to this homogenisation of media.

> > This sort of critical judgement requires human intelligence and values, and
> > will do for some time to come.
>
> Google doesn't obviate "human intelligence and values". In fact, it
> amplifies it by scanning a pool of "human intelligence and values" no single
> (or comparable) human editorial staff could possibly cover. Instead of
> centralized editorial control and its "critical judgment", it's distributed
> judgment by 4,000. It's like the stock market. The sum is bigger than its
> parts.

Intelligence and values are particular to individuals.  We don't all have
the same values, and we don't all think the same thoughts.  The sum is
considerably less than the parts here, reducing a broad diversity to a
relatively limited range.  Reading the same views repeatedly rather than a
range of views does not enrich the flow of information we recieve, or our
ability to make sense of what is going on in the world.

Andrew McNaughton