A long tail of authority?
James at Redmonk posts on Andrew Keen’s book The Cult of the Amateur. Keen’s point is, in a nutshell, that user-generated content is inferior to that of professionals. So we take risks by using social media sources as reference points – Wikipedia and its (allegedly) dodgy content is the oft-cited example.
James contrasts Keen’s theory with Chris Anderson’s Long Tail and suggests that a “long tail of authority” will emerge as the credibility of professional authorities diminishes.
Hmmm. A “long tail of authority” sounds like an oxymoron to me. We use third parties to replace experience we ourselves don’t have. For trivial needs (which toothpaste to buy) we defer to just about anyone (spouse, sales assistant, person also browsing for toothpaste, etc). But for more important decisions we tend to use more verifiable sources. It’s not just authority that’s important – accountability is also vital is such decisions. Which is why we pay professionals, and why professional need indemnity cover.
By definition (I think), authority in any market is concentrated in the “short head.” It’s a scarce resource. Social media helps to distribute authority but doesn’t help create it.
As always, the truth is in the middle somewhere. There’s no doubt that social media has enabled some new authorities to emerge (James is a good example, top rated analyst blog). But there’s also a huge amount of dross being generated. Telling the two apart can be difficult for the uninitiated.
(As an aside, the analyst industry is professional nowadays but wasn’t always so. In my early years at Ovum (mid 90s) we often referred to ourselves as enthusiastic amateurs writing on subjects we (at first) knew little about. Specialisation and professionalism have changed this – I wonder if we’re heading towards full circle…)
James contrasts Keen’s theory with Chris Anderson’s Long Tail and suggests that a “long tail of authority” will emerge as the credibility of professional authorities diminishes.
Hmmm. A “long tail of authority” sounds like an oxymoron to me. We use third parties to replace experience we ourselves don’t have. For trivial needs (which toothpaste to buy) we defer to just about anyone (spouse, sales assistant, person also browsing for toothpaste, etc). But for more important decisions we tend to use more verifiable sources. It’s not just authority that’s important – accountability is also vital is such decisions. Which is why we pay professionals, and why professional need indemnity cover.
By definition (I think), authority in any market is concentrated in the “short head.” It’s a scarce resource. Social media helps to distribute authority but doesn’t help create it.
As always, the truth is in the middle somewhere. There’s no doubt that social media has enabled some new authorities to emerge (James is a good example, top rated analyst blog). But there’s also a huge amount of dross being generated. Telling the two apart can be difficult for the uninitiated.
(As an aside, the analyst industry is professional nowadays but wasn’t always so. In my early years at Ovum (mid 90s) we often referred to ourselves as enthusiastic amateurs writing on subjects we (at first) knew little about. Specialisation and professionalism have changed this – I wonder if we’re heading towards full circle…)
Labels: Andrew Keen, Chris Anderson, long tail, Redmonk
posted by Duncan Brown at 12:03 pm
2 Comments:
I agree up to a point, Duncan. There's no question there's a lot of dross out there in the social media world - although arguably the proportion of 'quality' to 'dross' isn't that different in the mainstream print or broadcast media - have you tried flicking through the cable channels recently?
And as you say, social media helps to distribute authority. In the old days, a PhD student working on an arcane area of neuroscience, for example, might only be known to other academics in the same area. Via social media, he or she can distribute his or her knowledge far more widely.
If the same happens for all PhD students engaged in similarly arcane areas of research, I can see that a 'long tail' of micro-authorities might emerge.
That's essentially the point of Wikipedia - and for all its errors and lacunae, I reckon it's still broadly as authoritative as anything you read in the 'quality' mainstream media, where relatively few articles are written by subject experts.
The skill, as ever, will be in being able to tell what's authoritative and what isn't. But people aren't stupid; just as they know that what they read in the Economist is authoritative and what they read in the National Enquirer probably isn't, they will come to develop the same kind of sensibilities for social media content.
I think, anyway.
Re. Andrew Keen, he's just contrarian for the sake of it I reckon, but it annoys me that he considers that user-generated content is ipso facto content that is created by amateurs. He has at least three blogs himself - are they supposed to be exempt from his reasoning?
Thanks Fiona. I admire your faith in the general public and its intelligence! The Economist and the Enquirer are at ends of the spectrum. But where does The Sun sit? Or the Daily Mail? People tend to believe what read as long as it agrees with what they already believe...
I have to say, I use Wikipedia all the time. So i don't mean to damn it. But I suggest that all Wikipedia users first read the entry on Wikipedia - it sets the context and explains its limitations.
Cheers.
Post a Comment
<< Home