Is this question on Quora.com yet?

Have you tried Quora.com yet?  It’s essentially an open question & answer board, divided out by topics.  The usual social media rules apply: you can follow threads, follow people, like answers, vote answers up and down, upload your profile, etc.  It’s also growing very quickly, going from zero to thousands of users and tens of thousands of questions in just under a year.  For me, the fascinating part is the meta-sociology that is still developing.  Quora is the proto-wikipedia, where information is still raw, subjective, and disjointed.

Early on, the site was populated by the early adopters, who by their very nature were authorities in the areas on the site and probably more attuned to the social media scene.  They were insiders.  Questions tended to be straightforward inquiries as to why an Internet business was doing something or pricing was structured or how many servers are available, and the answer usually came from a VP at that business.

Now, however, the site is full of honest inquiries that are really requests for recommendations, as well as completely subjective chit-chat questions where a “real answer” would be impossible.  For example, just from today we see “Which is the Best song by The Cure?” and “Why should I see Tron?”  These questions have no answers, they’re the aimless chit-chat (and they don’t even qualify for hipster-idiotication status like “which is more environmentally friendly, disposable razors or electric razors?“).  None of these issues would be allowed over at Wikipedia.  And they would start a fight on any single-threaded blog or news discussion site like HuffPo or BoingBoing or Fark.  How long will that last?  Is it only a matter of time (and popularity) before Quora gets swamped with subjectiveness and drivel?  Or are there structural elements in place that will contain the slosh-over?

Here’s what I see that’s good so far:

  1. Quora is severely limited down to a question with several answers that get voted up or down.  This may keep the crap and joke answers under control, but voting only works to a certain point.
  2. Users can follow specific topics in their feed, so supposedly it may be self-editing where I don’t need to see questions about celebrity diets or snotty book reviews.
  3. Quora prompts you to invite your friends from Facebook and twitter– which is more than likely your real set of peers and friends, so you’re less likely to act like a goof with your answers.

Here’s what I see that’s not so good so far:

  1. Quora is severely limited down to a question with several answers.  There’s no real easy way to build up knowledge incrementally by adding into an existing text (like there was with Wikipedia before the reference zealots took over).  Yes, one can edit a previous answer, but the site is geared toward people merely tacking on another answer.  In the end, it answers the question, but it doesn’t build up a knowledge-base (yet).
  2. Users can follow specific topics in their feed, but this limits down the user’s exposure to topics where he/she is likely already an expert.  This may increase the quality overall, but it also may encourage showing-off in front of your peers.
  3. Quora prompts you to invite your friends from Facebook and twitter– which is more than likely your real set of peers and friends, so you’re much more likely to act like a goof with your answers.

I’ve answered questions.  I haven’t asked any yet.  I’ve seen astroturfing (companies asking straw-man questions), I’ve seen shameless self-promotion (people asking themselves questions), and I’ve seen some solid answers.  We’ll see how this one plays out.

Rally to Restore Insanity

good luck with that.

Oh, that I could be in Washington DC at the end of the month, to attend the Rally to Restore Sanity sponsored by Jon Stewart.  When Jon was pitching for his satirical rally, he stated as one of the deliverables for the conference was for “… everyone to take it down a notch.”  I’ve already seen this phrase on Boing Boing twice since then, as well as a few other places.  I predict it will be the new meme for Fall, and is certainly welcome and several years overdue.

Social media is fun and interactive and certainly eats up more than its fair share of our precious time (which should be devoted to sitcoms and game shows), but it comes with a sour side effect: all these online threads and discussions reward the polemic, the sarcastic, the zealot, and the crank.  No one gets very far in a discussion thread with something like “well, I don’t agree with you, but I can see where you’re coming from, so I guess that’s okay.”  It doesn’t matter if we’re discussing politics, restaurants, athletes, or Star Trek episodes (it’s a foregone conclusion that “City on the Edge of Forever” is the greatest episode of all time).  Any discussion thread is pretty much dead in the water until someone throws a rock, either decrying some action or wildly praising it, which causes some factionalization.

When someone throws a rock in a discussion thread, participants have four possible fates:

  1. Some people in the group will oppose the first position with equally violent counter-rhetoric.
  2. Some people will oppose the opposers.  We now have our two camps of douche-bags and assholes.
  3. A third group will take the sarcastic meta-position of critiquing both groups (which I am doing here to some degree).
  4. A fourth group will try and come up with some rational explanation or middle ground.  Good luck with that.

None of this is new information.  We’ve had Godwin’s law for over 20 years now.  What has changed is that: a) there are a lot more people in these threads now, and are just waking up to these dynamics (your mom knows about Godwin now).  All of these non-geeks used to yell and scream in sports bars over cigarettes, but they’re on your facebooks now, and they’re going through the cycle; and b) Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are trying their damndest to give that fourth group some juice.

I, for one, welcome this new meme.  I’m going to make it a point to use it online at least three times this week.

http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/

truer than you think

Times was, I used to be able to spout off any random factiod I thought I knew, and the Internet took it as read truth.  The Wikipedia used to be great for this.  Now, my rants are pretty much limited to the blarg you’re reading right now– we’re probably all better off for it.  Most university professors scowl very deeply if a student references the Wikipedia in a footnote, which is fair, but not for the reasons most people think: Wikipedia is a bad reference source because it’s a derivative work, not because it may be inaccurate:  The student should be citing the original work, not someone’s summarized boilerplate.  Wikipedia has largely squashed the ‘inaccurate’ label through a zealous use and requirement of all statements must have footnotes.

But that raises a conundrum for many of us: where is truth?  Where is the expert?  Is the expert the one with the most experience?  Is the expert the one with the most money?  The most devotees?  Is truth simply the mob’s consensus?  Graduate school told me that truth is the logical sum of a tested thesis.  I spent 15 years being smug that I knew what that meant, only now to really see that when the Internet gave everyone a soapbox from which to preach, now social networks are giving everyone a Hyde’s Park corner complete with audiences.  Companies like bazaarvoice and pluck are setting up these cacophonies wherever possible (good for them).  These systems invariably include meta-rating systems to rate the reviews and the reviewers, in the hopes of crowdsourcing the good information from the bad.  In general, it usually works.  It is still, however, all based on a Kuhn-model of mob truth.

The NYT recently published an article on a new computer named “Watson” designed by IBM to play Jeopardy.  Another possible use they summized might be to find counter-factual statements to anyone’s gtiven declaration on the Internet.  In short: a bullshit detector.  I can imagine they will be able to monetize this thing into millions of dollars: every social network and review thread can now come with a robot that can read plain speech, offer immediate counter-responses to erroneous information, and perhaps even show us a numerical score for ‘trustability’ or ‘truthiness(all the footnotes in that link– irony!). The downside here, of course, is that most reviews for most products will be reduced to little more than the barren subjectivism of American Bandstand: “It’s got a good beat, I can dance to it.”

There is still salvation for quality content in quality reviews: hard numerical data, solid logic, and qualitative feature polarization.  I’ll explain myself on those in some upcoming posts.

© 2010 Dave Jenkins contact me via twitter @davejenk1ns or via email blog at davejenkins dot com Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha