The purpose of the Internet
I’m preparing a speech I’ll be giving on Saturday in Monterrey, Mexico.
The topic is the purpose of the Internet. I believe it makes sense to say that it has a purpose, in the same way it makes sense to say any publishing medium has a purpose. I say that there are two usefully distinguishable notions about what the Internet is for: (1) communication and socialization and (2) finding information. But there is a problem, I say, in that most websites are set up as media of communication, and what policies that sense for media of communication often make no sense for media of information. Among other things, I’ll be explaining how communication produces lots of information of great value and interest to the conversationalists but of almost no value to anyone else. In another connection, I’ll explain that Google Search is essentially a popularity contest in much the same way YouTube, Digg, and social networking sites are. And — you guessed it — I’ll be arguing that there’s something wrong with this picture.
What do you think? What is the purpose of the Internet? Are there conceptual confusions involved in the Web 2.0 policies that make online communities, and even Google Search, into popularity contests? How might it be changed to be more suited to the purpose of finding information?
Also, if anybody has any pointers to previous essays on these themes, I’d appreciate it.
I disagree about Google, they simple have the best internet search engine around. I don’t believe that social networking will replace Google as a mechanism for indexing the internet, unlike most.
Comment by Alex MacGregor — February 26, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
What part do you disagree with? I agree with you that Google is the best Internet search engine around, and I don’t think social networking (at least, in its present form) has a prayer of replacing it. Sounds right to me.
Comment by Larry Sanger — February 27, 2009 @ 1:02 am
In other words, Google doesn’t show the best sites first, only the most popular. This has problematic consequences (amid the pros), but Dr. Sanger’s not criticizing Google b/c there’s no other way around. In fact, if search results were based on the level of quality that Google determines, then there would be the whole issue of neutrality that would have to be taken into account in order to assess Google’s performance.
Comment by Chunbum Park — February 27, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
Hi, I’m a 21-years old Information Techonologies student in Mexico and I was there at SISCTI 34 and saw your speech.
As soon as I came back home I looked for your blog. I had this questions in my mind since last years’ symposium, where I remember most listening about the benefits of Web 2.0 and not much about its weaknesses.
I clearly understood your point about how popularity can win over accurate information on the web as I didn’t see it that way before. But what’s more important after problems are located, is finding solutions and I really hope that area will be worked on in the recent years. Do you see that happening? How?
Also I Wikipedia-ed you earlier (hehe) and was surprised to read your not longer enrolled.
Well, congratulations on your speech last weekend and I hope you had a pleasant stay at Mexico and nice trip back home.
Comment by Efrén Martínez — March 2, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
I meant you’re not active on Wikipedia anymore though you co-founded it, I’ll look for some explaining of this later (if there’s any info.)
And I agree with the previous comment about the possible issue of Google being the judge on determining which content has better quality than others and ranking them into search results. I think that would eventually lead us back to “knowledge-elitism” where only a few decide what’s true and what’s wrong. What do you think?
I think its more important also to educate about what internet is and about its contents, as Dr. Sanger did on Saturday.
Back in 1998 where I first went online with my own home computer I thought that Internet was a huge encyclopedia full of scientific and proved facts only. I’m afraid that many people still think of it in a similar way these days.
Comment by Efrén Martínez — March 2, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
Efren, thanks!
You mean, there would be an issue about neutrality different from the one that already exists? Google’s PageRank algorithm is “biased” in favor of popularity. Is this not really a kind of bias?
Comment by Larry Sanger — March 2, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Yes, that’s what I totally agree with you. Sorry for the “broken” English, I haven’t been able to find courses between my classes schedule in many years, but that’s pretty much what I meant. And when I heard you say that at the conference it opened my eyes, I mean it’s there, but I didn’t see it that way. And I think the same happens to many other people.
I’m so proud I can contact you! (thanks Web 2.0 and thank you of course)
I’m soooo bookmarking your blog
Comment by Efrén Martínez — March 4, 2009 @ 12:32 am