Collective intelligence is the capacity of human communities to evolve towards
higher order complexity and harmony, through such innovation mechanisms as
variation-feedback-selection, differentiation-integration-transformation, and
competition-cooperation-coopetition (Por).
In the simplest way, shape and form,
collective intelligence is the knowledge of everybody and anybody. It doesn’t
boil down to being as simple as that, but for the sake of ease of
understanding, that’s how I am going to define it for now. Collective
intelligence can be found in many different outlets, particularly from the web.
Look at a site like Facebook. Facebook is a place where you archive your own
thoughts, photos, videos etc. for everybody that you are friends with to look
at. What can all of your friends do to these posts? They can put their two
cents in on whatever you posted and all of a sudden it’s collective
intelligence.
At first, I thought that collective
intelligence wasn’t really something that was affecting journalism. However,
upon further review, I figured out that it was indeed affecting journalism in
more ways than I could explain in this word limit.
The first way I want to talk about
is through open journalism. Now I know I mentioned this last week
as well, but everything is connected in one way or another and this is just a
perfect example. Last post I associated open journalism with user generated content and in this post I am going to connect collective intelligence to
open journalism. Thus, basically connecting user-generated content and
collective intelligence, because in most cases, collective intelligence is a
form of user generated content. So, what is open journalism? Well its societies
contribution to journalism. We read an article or watch a video from a news
source and comment on it with our personal reactions to said article. People
even read the comments and draw their own conclusions based off of those
comments creating more collective intelligence than I can wrap my head around.
Wikipedia is one of the biggest sources of collective intelligence
out there right now and it has become an outlet for sorts for all different
kinds of news. Journalists, although many will refuse to admit it, constantly
turn to Wikipedia for information and news all the time. Granted there is
really no merit to what is being said, but because of how instantaneous updates
can be it is one of the most readily accessible sources for any story. Take for
instance stories that have appeared over time in the Los Angeles Times
and how they have included the text “according to Wikipedia.” If you think it’s
just on filler articles as well you would be dead wrong. The words have
appeared on articles about Barack Obama (Shaw 2008). There was even a study
conducted at one point that compared information found on Wikipedia and
information in Britannica to see how valid the site actually was. In the
end it was closer than you may think. The average errors per Britannica page
was three while the average error for a Wikipedia page was four. One more error
per page and people still discredit it as a reliable source. Granted there are
some pages on Wikipedia that will have fabricated information, but the bottom
line is that you are responsible for what you put on paper and if you have to
take one extra step to make sure it is true then why not use Wikipedia?
So now that we know Wikipedia can be
a reliable source for collective intelligence what about social media? Now I
know what you are saying, “No way can he make a case for social media as a news
outlet. It’s just a bunch of schmucks saying what’s on their mind.” Well I’m
going to tell you that in some cases it is, but in fact it can be a good source
for news information. In fact some of the biggest news stories have been
broken through social media over the last year. The deaths of Amy Whinehouse,
Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson and even Osama Bin Laden were all broadcast
over twitter before major media outlets picked up on them. Remember when the
U.S. pilot landed that plane on the Hudson? Well guess what news source broke
that news first, twitter.
Due to the speed of a Twitter post,
it is becoming a major source for breaking news everywhere. Even in sports it
is leaving its. Athletes such as Brian Dawkins, Shaquille O’Neal and Donald
Driver have all announced their retirement through Twitter. Shaq Daddy took it
a step further and after announcing it, broadcast a formal announcement over
the site Tout, which eventually bombed. All in all, it won’t be long until we
see more and more breaking news stories broken over sites like Twitter and
Facebook as the trend has already started.
Works
Cited
"Collective
intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence>.
Flew, Terry. New
media: an introduction. 3rd ed. South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University
Press, 2008. Print.
"Has the
Internet Killed Print Journalism? - YouTube." YouTube. N.p., n.d.
Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_MaGHrPI_0>.
Laird, Sam.
"How Social Media Is Taking Over the News Industry [INFOGRAPHIC]." Mashable.
N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.
<http://mashable.com/2012/04/18/social-media-and-the-news/>.
Por, George.
"Wordpress." Blog of Collective Intelligence. N.p., n.d. Web.
27 Feb. 2013. <http://blogofcollectiveintelligence.com/about/>.
"Shaq top
10 quotes - YouTube." YouTube. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWqPnEGzfK8>.
Shaw, Donna.
"Wikipedia in the Newsroom." American Journalism Review
30.Feb/Mar (2008): 40-45. Print.
"Top 10
News Stories That Broke on Twitter | Breaking News for Black America." Breaking
News for Black America | News One. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.
<http://newsone.com/2000159/top-10-news-stories-that-broke-on-twitter/>.