[11686] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: Learning diversity over the Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Craig A Summerhill)
Thu Sep 25 20:18:42 1997
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:18:28 -0500
From: Craig A Summerhill <craig@cni.org>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, "Karen G. Schneider" <kgs@bluehighways.com> wrote:
>
> Suzanne Hildenbrand <lishilde@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Karen, does it have to be SUCCESS stories? How about experiences so
> > you (and readers) might assess the real value of Internet in overcoming
> > barriers? As it is you have kind of weighted your results, don't you
> > think?
>
> Of course I have weighted my results. Was I supposed to be objective?
[ other stuff deleted ]
While celebrating diversity might be the objective of your (I'm sure now
long since put-to-bed American Libraries) column, Karen, I think Suzanne
makes a valid point. My initial reaction in reading your posting was
much the same. A lot of what is going on has nothing to do with
diversity, and with all due respect, it is a point of view I don't think
Wired has covered very well (especially as I consider there are few of
those anyway).
When ALA was in Miami in 1994, I was asked to speak in a LAMA
preconference on emerging electronic communities. I made the point, in
my talk, that as the network expanded I found it very likely that
communities of individuals would become more segregated than they were
in the early days of the network. Somebody (I can't remember who it
was, no slight intended) after the presentation challenged me on the use
of the term segregated, and suggested I meant something else less loaded
like disaggregated or some such term. I stopped for a moment to think
about what was being suggested to me, and then stuck to my guns.
More than three years later, I see nothing to suggest that this is not
still the case and even more so. It is all about people aggregating
around like individuals who share similar interests.
The chief problem, as I see it, is one of managing information. In a
world/network rich with information, there are physical limits to how
much information an individual can be expected to process. While it
is true that the skill of the individual and the tools available to the
individual have a direct correlation on this processing experience,
everything I see still suggests people have a threshold of tolerance
above which they simply won't or can't deal with additional information.
When this happens, people have to pick and choose what they will listen
to. And it is just like choosing sides for a game of ball when we were
kids. We pick our friends and the things that make us comfortable. This
is how the segregation occurs, we retreat out of public spaces into
more structured and refined information spaces, which may still be
public, but are not nearly as diverse as any city street.
PACS-L is a perfect example of how this works. Ten years ago, PACS-L
was pretty much the only discussion list available to those of us
working with computers in libraries (and it was mostly academic back
then, as we all know). We discussed a lot of things which were only
marginally related to computers between 1989 and 1991 because there was
no other place to discuss it. And we were all richer for it. Today,
there are hundreds of discussion lists (public, private, Internet,
Intranet, etc.) to which we are each subscribed. As more people have
become involved, and as more resources have become available, we've
specialized. We've got lists (and NoiseNet newsgroups) to discuss
everything from ALA to Z39.50 (including left-handed librarianship and
footwear for librarians, both of which are subdivided into lists for
technical services people and public services people). B^)
The same thing is going on with broadcast television these days. Cable
and direct satellite broadcasting are cutting into the market that was
once owned by three companies in this country. I know that I only
concentrate on a half dozen or a dozen TV stations out of sixty or
seventy (yes, I admit it, I only have the basic package -- no premium
channels to surf mindlessly through), and judging from the people I know
and talk to most of them don't watch more than a few each as well.
Honestly, I don't know how some of those channels stay in business. The
Nielsen rating must be non-existent for most of them. I really think
they're broadcasting to hear and see themselves sometimes.
And honest to God, as convergence continues, I think we're all going to
end up with our own channel some day, where we can broadcast incessantly
to ourselves. The ultimate expression of cyber-narcissism.
Not everybody gets around the network as much as you do Karen. Anyway...
your response to Suzanne sounded a little less than objective to me. I
simply wanted to weigh in on this. I personally think her suggestion
about the network is a much more interesting groundwork for a discussion
or an article.
--
Craig A. Summerhill, Systems Coordinator and Program Officer
Coalition for Networked Information
21 Dupont Circle, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Internet: craig@cni.org AT&Tnet (202) 296-5098
