Midterm Exam Question 2

In Wikipedia: The Truth in Numbers the message seems to be: no longer do the victors write the history books, we do: you, me, and everyone else. How is social media (twitter, blogs) forwarding this idea? What gives someone authority to "write history" and why should we listen to them? Is there a hierarchy of authorities? ie. is what someone like Seth Godin says more important? What should be taken as canon?


Twitter and blogs are allowing us to write our own history and news. Individuals want to spread massages in the cheapest, fastest way possible. Professionals broadcasting information to amateurs is gone. Anyone can tweet or post blogs online these days, our personal opinions are available to everyone. Social media knows no boundaries; our messages have no physical limits. Internet is first medium that supports groups and conversation at the same time. Phone is one to one conversation where the Internet is seen as a many to many pattern. Social media allows you to consume and produce information appose to just consuming it, as it once was. As Clay Shirky states in his presentation below, last May China had a large earthquake and it was reported as it was happening. People were taking pictures on their phones, posting online as well as twittering. As the quake was happening the news was reported. The BBC got their first wind of the quake from Twitter, Twitter announced existence of quake before the U.S Geological Survey had anything online. Last time an earthquake of this magnitude occurred it took them 3 months to admit that it had happened. The government was not given the choice this time, citizens presented the news in the form of a tweets or video post. Even the government got their information from Twitter. Formal forms of news just can’t compete with this speed. In the case of the last Chinese earthquake, clearly the government was not interested in publicizing the earthquake so the citizens are now taking it upon themselves to inform the public and create history.

As for the legitimacy of online information and what should be taken as canon, I believe it is all relevant to the subject at hand. Although everyone is given a voice I would agree that some are not worth our time. Someone may have 10,000 followers on Twitter but that does not mean they have more authority than someone who has 1,000 followers. As long as you believe a person to be credible by your own form of evaluation you can judge the relevance and legitimacy of their message. Individuals like Perez Hilton and Seth Godin are both experts in their field and both have an authoritative voice in relation to their expertise. For everyone else posting on line I believe you have to take what individual bloggers and tweeters say with a grain of salt.