eriks

I had a chat yesterday about an entry I wrote some weeks ago about a nightly walk down by the beach. She told me that the lyrics of the song (Fix You by Coldplay), made a big impression of one of her friends. That got me thinking of the text some more.

I am currently taking part in a fellowship program – Reuters Digital Vision Program- which brings together a group of experienced social entrepreneurs from the world corners. But what is a social entrepreneur really? I remember an explanation made by a student in the beginning of the program: A social entrepreneur is a person that both values a positive balance in the checking account and social impact of his/her work. Of course there is a discussion whether the social impact is the more important part, and today an article is illustrating that discussion, where there is an interview of the founder of Ebay and the Omidyar foundation, Pierre Omidyar, where he discuss the nature of social entrepreneurship. This is an ongoing discussion that probably will continue for sometime now.

Personally, I believe that social entrepreneurship is about trying… trying to make difference… trying to help somebody without asking for something in return. The movie "Pass It Forward" defines it so well. We should help people that needs that extra hand, and give pieces of ourselves.

Tears stream down your face
When you lose something you cannot replace
And I will try to fix you

… because I will definately try.

I read a blog by Nichoals Carr on the amorality of the Web 2.0. What is a bit scary these days is the unconditional trust people put on system like the Wikipedia and Delicious. Putting the full power in the hands of the users is not complex free, as we really have to trust all the users. Do not get me wrong, I truly believe in the power of the users and applaud the new movement on the web to really make it a read-and-write again as it was the true intentions by Tim Berners-Lee from the beginning.

Basically, technology is a tool, nothing else. If we want to save or at least change the world, we have to do it ourselves, but probably by the help of technology. Technology in itself actually does very little. This is one component of the complexity. Another component is that technicians always have to reflect on the awareness and readiness to exposure of new technology of the users that we develop these new technologies for. The problem is as much in us as well as it is in the new technologies.

Personally, I am a true believer of technology and think there might be a way to go to really make a difference, but as Nicholas Carr is saying in his blog: "The Internet had transformed many things, but it had not transformed us. We were the same as ever." This is an essential statement that tends to get lost when people are discussing new technologies. We have to be ready for it and able to handle them. The sad part is that the absolute majority has to or else we (might) end up loosing.

I will use the wiki and especially the flagship Wikipedia as a base for the discussion. Some say we should not compare the Wikipedia to Encyclopaedia Britannica clearly haven’t understood the true intentions of them. Wikipedia should be compared to Encyclopaedia Britannica by all means, as it is the true competitor both as to content and the number of entries.

The number of entries is never an argument as information never should be about quantity but about quality. Of course the entries in Wikipedia is much more alive and can be updated all the time, but can we trust the information in it? What happens to the information if somebody enters incorrect or even false information? The common answer is that it will be corrected rapidly, but is that really the case… always. What happens during the period in between?

Let us take a look a a specific case. Let’s say a student seeks information about something and founds the entry at the Wikipedia. The essay is due tomorrow and therefore he or she cannot check all the trackbacks of the changes, and therefore relies on the information to be correct. Whos problem is this? I say this is ours, as we surely can trust Encyclopaedia Britannica more. Simply by the entries are written by experts, and reviewed by experts. Are they right or wrong? Who knows, but the trust lies in this fact. All the entries inside are also created by the same methodology and therefore the whole encyclopaedia is more likely to be trusted.

Especially wikis all rely on the trust to them, and personally I love wikis as they are excellent for working in groups and correcting each other’s mistakes. (Actually this site is built on the combination of a wiki and a blog) Yet wikis really depend on the good in people. If anybody can change it, anybody can destroy or mess with it. Sad, but true. Again, I am a strong believer in the power of and the good in the people. However I still believe there are dangers with the complete and ultimate freedom, by which I have not at all said we should not have the freedom that Web 2.0 represent. We however should not put to much trust into it as part of the problem lies within ourselves.

Before we can assure that we are ready to handle the new technology and we have adjusted the technology so that it reflects how we work, the ultimate vision will not be fulfilled. We are getting there, but the Web 2.0 is still far from free of complexity.

I want this to happen, but will Web 2.0 change this. Time will tell, but I think we cannot be blind to the fact that it is much easier to destroy than to create. Of course we should start, but as the telling goes: “Rome was not built in a day…” Nevertheless, I am truly excited to see what happens…

I love rocky rides, so count me in!