Year: 2011
Type: editorial
Abstract: It was recently opined by Amnesty International that social media had played a crucial role in ousting Tunisia's and then Egypt's longtime authoritarian rulers (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report-2011-amnesty-international-50-says-historic-change-knife-edge-2011-05-13). That is at most a matter of opinion, as several journalists and current affairs commentators have written. After all, similar overthrows have taken place throughout history with the most basic of technological organization – in past ages most of the participants were probably illiterate. Perhaps social media are more crucial in encouraging literacy. It was also recently observed – I wager with some amusement – that cheap Gucci sunglasses were being advertised together with other suspect wares (albeit fleetingly) via a post on the blog of a prominent scientific publication that chooses the policy of publishing posts without editorial inspection, probably in the interest of speed and democracy. Indeed, what could be more democratic than allowing free advertising of counterfeit goods online for all to see. So, there we have the first three terms in the title satisfied; whatever might be untrue about the role of social media in popular revolutions, their speed is unquestionable, and it may well be that the combination of speed and connectivity of these media contributed to the speed with which the momentum of the masses grew in Egypt and Tunisia. Twitter, for example, has also been considered of significant help in a disaster (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/25334/); those unfortunate enough to make a small slip in a social media contribution will know that Twitter et al. can help cause a disaster as well – of a personal nature (http://jayrosen.posterous.com/anatomy-of-a-twitter-screw-up-my-own). People who live by the sword will also die by the sword (at least it's a swift death). But beware of dismissing social media too, because those who don't live by the sword can all the more easily be killed by one ;-) So, social media are here to stay. They are a natural success story: robust because they have largely self-organised and evolved “organically”. They can be both powerful and useful. But having proven their speed, democracy and accessibility, they have yet to demonstrate their quality – at least above the level of the much bemoaned average quality of the Internet that they inhabit. That is one of their largest problems: as Web 3.0 emerges from the acknowledgement that quality and specificity of information have – often laboriously – to be coaxed out of the rambling democracy of the Internet, we might wonder how social media improve that situation. Even in scientific blogs – and with acknowledgement of the undoubted value that social media can have in post-publication peer review and commentary – there is all too frequently a problem of quality, ranging from language that is so poor as to obscure the scientific meaning, through defamation, ridicule and plain irrelevance. If social media are to provide people wishing to find out more about the science in question with specific value, some form of quality control and/or filter is arguably already necessary. It need certainly not censure content – democracy of the medium is one of its most important and attractive merits – but it could at least identify and concentrate the most useful material. At the pre-publication end, moderation of blogs might be seen by some as cramping the freedom and speed of the medium. But if moderation can – in communication with, and with the consent of, contributors – help them more clearly express their messages or correct blatant mistakes, surely that is worth more than mere speed. Even more damaging to the medium than fleeting adverts for counterfeit goods is the drudging reliability of contributions that are anything but informative. In a sense, it is not such a tragedy that much of the “free-for-all” blog-art passes by so quickly that it will be forgotten. And yet thence emerges the next problem: if good quality social media commentary is to form an adjunct to the traditionally peer-reviewed literature, and be cited (either within the text or in a reference list), efforts need to be made on many fronts to index, archive and provide search facilities for the material. For celebrity gossip magazines the fleeting triviality of much of Social Media 1.0 is more than adequate, but for science we would be well advised to start thinking about Social Media 2.0 sooner rather than later…
Source: BioEssays
Author: Andrew Moore
Language: English
Subfield: Information Systems and Management
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W1496140647