The current friction between people who create content and those who create content factories evokes the evolution versus intelligent design debate. Why do the intelligent designers of content feel under siege as content factories create ever more gluttonous methods for manufacturing it? What does each side have to teach the other? Here are the arguments. (more…)
In a recent article in The Guardian, Cory Doctorow called for search reform. “Search is the beginning and the end of the internet,” he wrote. While I agree things need to change, a reformed Internet built around search is like a reformed energy policy built around oil. If we only look for solutions through the narrow lens of search, we’re unlikely to solve these problems at all.
Cory’s article is a tight encapsulation of widely held concerns over search. We share too much private information with search engines. They hold too much power over what is relevant and important. And there is a troubling lack of transparency and accountability into how search engines weigh these decisions.
His bottom line: Vesting this kind of power with a handful of companies is a “terrible idea”.
Fair enough, but when he ventures into possible solutions, Cory, like so many other Internet watchers, makes a serious wrong turn. “Put that way, it’s obvious: if search engines set the public agenda, they should be public.”
(more…)
We’re only a month away from the launch of our thought networking service. On this blog, I’ve outlined our vision of thought networking as a new category of semantic applications. With thought networking, we want to help consumers effortlessly collect their thoughts and bend the Internet around them. Leading up to our launch, I want to summarize our vision for this service and our motivations for creating it.
The problem with today’s Internet is that it is imposed on consumers. Information is organized for them in advance, without their input. Consumers are treated not as individuals but as amorphous collections of audiences. Producers spend massive amounts of money trying to guess what their audiences need, and compensate for the gaps with monolithic websites and complicated tools to sift through it all.
A much better approach would put the horse in front of the cart, allowing individual consumers to dictate how the information should be organized for them. Simply ask them, “What are you thinking about?” and make those thoughts the organizing force behind it all. Computers could then wield these concrete representations of our thoughts to reorganize and reconstitute the information for each individual. Producers save money; consumers get the simple, made-to-order Web they deserve.
The vast majority of semantic technologists are directing their efforts to search. It’s an important use of their talents; search is a hard problem worth solving. But it seems to me that we need to take a broader view. Semantics is the stuff of thought, of meaning, of our most personal and deeply held beliefs. A fully realized semantic web will be much more than “better search”. But the future is hard to imagine. We need concrete examples of semantic applications to demonstrate the potential and fuel our imaginations.
So as a glimpse into this future, consider the world’s first mainstream semantic web: Wikipedia. Wikipedia is most often celebrated as the poster child of Web 2.0. As a social application, this is most certainly true. But its output, its content, may be more illustrative of Web 3.0 semantics. Its articles are abstractions: they summarize a huge body of content down to only the essential aspects of each subject. By maintaining organizational standards and templates, it has become machine-readable (derivatives such as DBpedia and many other research projects make it explicitly so). And the subject matter of Wikipedia is clearly the stuff of thought. Semantic representation and encyclopaedic content have a deep and obvious kinship.
These technical attributes put Wikipedia in the semantics camp. Web 2.0 principles may be driving Wikipedia’s prodigious output, but Web 3.0 semantic qualities are driving the phenomenal mainstream consumption of the information. If Wikipedia is truly illustrative of semantic data, then insights into Wikipedia’s consumption may point to killer applications of semantics.
Content is king, an annoyingly loud, ostentatious, and over-bearing king. I’m hunting for a new car and I’m drowning in content: auto-makers’ websites, reviews, test reports, consumer opinions, and dealer listings. I’ve retrieved hundreds of pages in total, costing me countless hours of time. The amount of useful information I’ve extracted is minuscule by comparison. I care about a few precious details of safety, fuel economy, and the overall value. The rest is just noise.
What makes this car shopping so painful is that the content is not organized based on my interests. It’s organized by the publishers. Unfortunately, reading about cars is not the task at-hand. I simply want to find my dream vehicle (if I can call a safe, economical, and value-priced vehicle a dream.)
In my last post, I argued that we need to stop organizing content for people and start helping them consume content to get tasks done. Semantic data figures prominently in that. Today, semantics is a second-class citizen, subordinate to content. But in this new world of task-oriented information, semantics may challenge content as the king of our online attention.
The Web suffers a fundamental problem. Search is a symptom of it. Surfing is a symptom of it. Even the website itself is a symptom of it. The problem is that content is organized for you, in advance. Pre-packaged content is like ordering off the menu at a restaurant. Sometimes it’s convenient, sometimes it’s just what you want, but many times, it’s a difficult choice to make. The Web wants to become made-to-order.
Search certainly helps. If I want to order off the menu, it’s great to have access to lots of restaurants and lots of menus. User-generated content is great, too, if you like to cook. But I don’t want to access content or create content, I want to consume it to get stuff done.
No one retrieves content for the sake of retrieving content; they have a deeper purpose in mind. “I need to create a report for my boss.” “I need to plan a trip for my family.” “I want to be entertained.” We’re task-oriented. All the intervening steps amount to the bill, tax, and gratuity. And since most tasks require us to visit many different sites, the overall cost is extraordinary.
A made-to-order Web would spare us these costs. If you’re ordering a specific task, much of the legwork can be delegated to machines. Computers are becoming increasingly adept at analytical tasks. They can break down content into bite-size pieces for our consumption. They are also capable of synthetic tasks, building the content back up into new forms. These types of analysis and synthesis tasks enable made-to-order.
