Does the fact that we can read a review on a product by John Smith necessarily make it any more accurate, reliable or trustworthy than a review written by the company itself? While browsing through some online sports shoe stores I realised all the reviews I read gave the shoes a good to great rating. I started to think surely not all of these shoes fit comfortably and have great arch and heel support. Are these reviews, written by regular people, really unbiased and reliable?

Crowdsourcing helps put the power back into the hands of the users, right. So why do I have such a mistrust for it when related to peer reviews of sports shoes? I think it is because boundaries still exist. For example, which reviews get published on the web site, censorship of reviewers, accuracy of information and the fact that if I read something in a review which turns out not to be true I can’t blame the company and ask for a refund.

The development of crowdsourcing has helped give access to information users might not normally have and give an unbiased opinion on products etc. Companies aren’t stupid though and we as users should be careful not to allow marketers and companies to use us to do their work. I think it takes some responsibility away from them and puts it on our shoulders to be smarter users and consumers.

 Crowdsourcing is great though it’s just a matter of searching through the information, finding what it is you want and extracting it from the pool.

Okay, so in lecture we looked at the transformation of knowledge and the arrival of the “Third Place”.
Oldenburg’s theory of three places where we spend time are home, work and the third place (neutral ground). The thing is I do not really think that it can be classified so simply into those three categories. Today people can do their work from home they can do it will on holiday as well.

The invisible colleges we talked about in the lecture are very much like Mary said, less recognised or held in lower regard than the visible colleges. However, does this mean that the information and knowledge we gain from these colleges is less meaningful? My opinion is that it is not. Invisible colleges often give us information which is often more subjective but information that we would probably struggle to find in a visible college. I really think that the invisible and the visible college are both beneficial, one no more than the other is, unless of course you only seek recognition and credentials.  Students at school and university often use Wikipedia when researching topics for essays, discussion etc. In these instances, we have the intertwining of the visible and the visible. Although Wikipedia may not be as factual as Britannica, what we see in today’s world is that people are often willing to substitute absolute facts for speed of information. The problem I see in this is that if the average Joe is willing to substitute absolute fact for speed of information don’t you think that there’s a strong possibility that newspapers, learning institutions etc might start doing the same thing? 

Just because you have the information it doesn’t mean you have the knowledge to make the computer.

When we looked at organisations and the changing structures (silos to networks) my first thoughts were “messy and complicated”. The change between the two is huge. On one side, you have well ordered, simplistic top down structure and on the other side there are cross-functional, interdependent systems with no clear beginning and end.

What I realised was that much like in the organisations structures, societies is very much network like. As individuals, most of us operate within our own network structure, which is quite clear to us, and we understand. Our own network along with everyone else’s operates within the wider networks that exist.  

When looking at business operations and end user interactions that are in play within these networks it seems that distance is dead. Improvements in the speed of information from the internet have created pathways to do almost anything from the comfort of your living room. Fixed assets can almost entirely be eliminated as Amazon.com proved.

One lingering worry I have is that with the shift from the tangible to the intangible are people and business giving power to the system. By that, I mean what would happen, where would we be if a real Y2K type problem occurred.  The shift in power is clearly towards the new economy, advances in technology and cyberspace. Nevertheless, what happens if the geeks get it wrong? Where does the balance of power shift from there?