Weinberger, D. (2011).Too big to know: rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room Is the room. New York: Basic Books.
Too Big to Know, despite being published nine years ago, is a timely and relevant exploration of information and knowledge during the Information Age. David Weinberger, a senior researcher at the Berkman Center, explores what knowledge exactly means and how it works. First, he looks at it from a historical lens, and then by examining the ever-changing definition when faced with the Net. Special attention is paid to how the internet is limitless, and in theory any individual can find information they are looking for and how the creation of the internet as facilitated this search.
From our course reading, Charles Naumer (2017) notes that the creation “of the Internet and the World Wide Web along with other new information and communication technologies facilitated more and new information behaviors that are more easily studied than in the past” (47). David Weinberger would agree. One of the most intriguing concepts from Too Big to Know was the idea that society is moving away from “traditional expertise”. Weinberger defines traditional expertise as “a relative handful of highly trained experts coming together, following a careful process, agreeing on conclusions” (2011, 47). Before the advent of the internet the only experts were the people with the education and ability to work together and publish. Now, individuals can be “experts” by having access to posting on the internet.
Although the Information Cycle diagram (pictured above) has social media and the web as the first step (day one) of the cycle, the information does not stop being readily available. Weinberg stresses the fact that once something is available on the internet – it does not go away. So, even as academic articles are being published and transcripts written, the most available sources continue to be the those available the first day. When a person uses the internet to search for information on the subject, they are subject to items from day one, without the reflection that comes with time removed from the initial day.
Another aspect of Weinberger’s argument that interested me was “information overload”. To begin his exploration of the changing nature of knowledge – Weinberger briefly explains the history of knowledge and information overload. He comes to the conclusion that information overload is not a creation of the web – it has history. Philosophers were worried when 100 books were being published each year. Instead, the advent of the internet has just made it easier to find information. Weinberger argues “the real lamination isn’t the capacity of our brains but that of the media we have used to get past our brain’s limitations” (2011, 5).
It is interesting to think about how “information overload” and the changing nature of knowledge has effected the true crime community. The popularity of true crime did not resurface until the early 2010s. The podcastsSerialandThis American Lifeare often cited as the beginning of the true crime podcast surge. But that is exactly what they were – the beginning. True crime podcasts flood the market; and fans are faced with hundreds (probably thousands of options). Not all of the results are going to have similar quality, and many will contain incorrect information.The job of the informational professional is to help these communities find the information they are looking for and insure that it is reliable. In this aspect – we are taking the traditional role of thefilter, removing the inadequate resources from the results for our patrons/individuals we are serving. Yet, when left to their own searches – individuals are faced with a system that will include any source, dependent upon the terms used. For the true crime podcast community, this specifically means that the fans could be faced with results that areincorrect, out of date,fear mongeringanswers (or any number of “fake news” sources).
And yet, there are many upsides to theaccessand abundance of information through the internet. For example, the podcastJensen and Holes: Murder Squaduse various sources,including“out of date” and misleading content on their journey to solving cold cases. For them, having access to years and years of loosely connected content can be the driving force in solving an unsolved case.The question I find myself asking is: are the negatives outweighed by the positives?
These are not issues are not specific to the true crimecommunity. Weinberger sees this as an issue for everyone, butnecessarilyas a problem that cannot be solved. Weinberger posits that “networked knowledge” resultingfrom the infinity of the internet is overall a positive. It is up to information technicians and professionals to help solve the issues that arise, because in the end – the internet is not going away.It is interesting that Too Big to Know was published almost a decade ago and is as relevant as ever with the surge of skeptical and misleading information readily found on the internet. Hopefully, in the next decade information professionals can help with having the positive side of the internet outshine the negative.
Above: A comedic take on the positives of the internet.
References
Naumer, C. M. & Fisher, K. E. (2017). Information needs. In J. D. McDonald, & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.),Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, (4th ed.). Retrieved fromhttps://doi-org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4
truTv. (2016, November 30). Adam ruins everything: Why the internet is good for society. [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNIHBEBsoKg
Weinberger, D. (2014).Too big to know: rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room Is the room. New York: Basic Books.
