Gin, Television, and Social Surplus - Here Comes Everybody
I’ve been fascinated with blogging for a while. My enthusiasm with the internet is not limited to blogging. Facebook, twitter, wordpress, open source software, stickam, or anything that has to do with WEB 2.0. A friend once asked why I’m into Web 2.0, and I couldn’t give her the answer.
I also spend a lot of time in the gaming society. I browse various video games forums all day long, eager to pass on tips and updates I learned with complete strangers. I patiently answer questions, no matter how repetitive or stupid they are. (Mind you most of the gamers are <18 years of age.)
I always think this hobby of mine is a complete waste of time. I’m better off doing _______ (fill in the blank yourself), I’d say.
But today I came across the transcript of a speech given at the WEB 2.0 conference. The transcript deeply moved me. It touched a spot in my heart that I’ve always suspected existed, but didn’t know where.
The article is long. Before you lose your patience and don’t see how Gins has anything to do with Web 2.0, allow me to summarize a little for you:
The author was once asked by a TV producer that where people find time to contribute to Wikipedia. He said
“No one who works in TV gets to ask that question. You know where the time comes from. It comes from the cognitive surplus you’ve been masking for 50 years.”
What’s a cognitive surplus? Basically it the brain power of people with ample free time thanks to peace, booming economy and modern technology. And what do we do with the free time? We watch TV.
So if you take Wikipedia as a kind of unit, all of Wikipedia, the whole project–every page, every edit, every talk page, every line of code, in every language that Wikipedia exists in–that represents something like the cumulation of 100 million hours of human thought.
And television watching? Two hundred billion hours, in the U.S. alone, every year. Put another way, now that we have a unit, that’s 2,000 Wikipedia projects a year spent watching television. Or put still another way, in the U.S., we spend 100 million hours every weekend, just watching the ads.
At the end of 20th century TV is the major source of entertainment. In the 21st century, some of us started using our energy on the net:
there’s an interesting community over here, there’s an interesting sharing model over there, those people are collaborating on open source software. But despite knowing the inputs, we can’t predict the outputs yet because there’s so much complexity.
The truth is, the majority of the work done, from blogging to open source software, will not have a significant impact to the society. To rub salt into the wound, most of these attempts will turn futile. Should we stop?
The way you explore complex ecosystems is you just try lots and lots and lots of things, and you hope that everybody who fails fails informatively so that you can at least find a skull on a pikestaff near where you’re going. That’s the phase we’re in now.
The author’s conclusion, to all of you fellow bloggers/web 2.0 contributors:
…ask ourselves, “If we carve out a little bit of the cognitive surplus and deploy it here, could we make a good thing happen?” And I’m betting the answer is yes.






Read the book!




.
,



