Week 1: Introductions, "Collective Intelligence", "What is Collaboration Anyway?" & Nextdoor

Hello all!

I created a description on my blog, but just in case some of you are unable to read it, my name is Klaudia and I am a Junior currently studying Information Science and eSociety here at the University of Arizona. I'm from Casa Grande, just an hour or so north of the University. I am a member of The Academy Drum and Bugle Corps' color guard in Tempe as well as the Treasurer of Wildcat Dancesport Ballroom Dance Club here on campus. I am looking forward to having a great semester!

This week we were tasked to read "What is Collaboration Anyway?" and "Collective Intelligence". Two concepts that stuck out to me in particular were the ideas that collaboration must be intentional and the egalitarian ideals of collective intelligence.

Collaboration can not always be intentional, as "What is Collaboration Anyway?" suggested. In Surowiecki's TED Talk, he mentioned the people affected by the Thailand tsunami in 2004. Many took it upon themselves to create videos, photos, and blog posts of the action.

These individuals that posted up videos, rumors, and updates from the disaster contributed to a collaborative documentation of the scope of that tsunami. It is unreasonable to assume they intentionally sought each other out before any new information was posted. Any individual that contributed probably did so of their own accord. However, does that make their unintentional collaboration any less meaningful than updates from a reputable news source? No. I don't feel as if those people had to have intentionally communicated with each other to have created a solid view of the events that actually transpired that day. Their collaboration was still valuable to the rest of the world as spectators, and the users still shared a common goal of providing information to those that could potentially be in danger or otherwise concerned for their well being during that serious time. These individuals still collaborated despite not meeting all of the criteria that the reading had set out.

In class we discussed that prominent users within online communities are not necessarily the most intelligent or best educated individuals. When reading "Collective Intelligence", I noticed Levy used language that almost equated the inequalities of intelligence to a type of poverty. In particular, Levy says "collective intelligence must not be confused with totalitarian projects involving the subordination of individuals." In this way, collective intelligence as discussed is a more egalitarian model of aggregate intelligence. Any one person has as valuable a stake in the collective as another, regardless of their formal education. Even those that are using informal English and may be seen as "unintelligent" otherwise are still a part of the generally intelligent collective. I see this to be a value system in a way. Instead of only "valuing" those that are seen as smart and belittling those that aren't, each member of the community is valued nearly equally, and all are free from ridicule and other judgment. No individual is seen as below the rest in the collective.

The last article we were asked to read was the article regarding racial profiling in real neighborhoods through an online resource.

The developers of this social network, Nextdoor, decided to combat racial profiling through the requirement of two or more valuable descriptors of perpetrators of suspicious activities or crimes. I definitely think that this was a step in the right direction for this type of network. It is typical to latch onto just one aspect of a person in passing. However, race is a small part of what is asked for when filing a police report. Having been trained in how to handle robberies in particular with my job as an accountant, more often than not the police are going to ask about birthmarks, tattoos, and the types of shoes that a perpetrator was wearing. Birthmarks and tattoos are not easily shed after a crime, and changing shoes would slow the criminal down. It is hard to pinpoint exactly what racial profiling is, but requiring community members to latch on to other information that simply a person's race can help give the police actual information should a real crime be committed by the black man that someone within the neighborhood thought was "suspicious".

In the optional reading, "Cyberhood v. Neighborhood", Barlow mentions that a crucial aspect of his ideal community would be "most importantly, shared adversity" (Barlow 53). This struck a chord with me, as he mentions in the introductory page that minority communities can't be considered real "communities" mostly because they are not defined by a single shared physical space. These communities do not share a specific space in the real world. However, I disagree. I believe online communities are as real as having a community within your own subdivision, particularly in the cases of those groups that feel they cannot share their identities in person for fear of discrimination.

Online LGBTQ communities provide resources for their members, or just those looking for help. Transgender suicide hot lines, online support groups, Internet based queer book clubs, clothing exchanges, and pretty much any other resource you can think of has been adapted to reach as many LGBTQ individuals as possible. These individuals all share an identity and common goals to provide safe and welcoming places to youth looking for acceptance and reassurance that they are not alone. I believe this is as good of a community as any other, regardless of the absence of a shared physical space.