Internet

I'm in the process of building a new, and significant addition to this site. Basically, its an index of some of the best resources on the web. For the record, it aims at quality, not quantity. I'm not creating some crappy yahoo index here. You can browse it by category from the "browse Resources" list on the left sidebar. Anyhow, check it out.

Also note that I will rarely include a resource on my blog's frontpage; the best way to keep track of new additions will be to subscribe to its RSS feed.

Today, I renamed a month old post that jokingly accused Rebecca Mackinnon of kitten eating. While I was checking referred logs today, I suddenly realized that the satirical post, titled "Rebecca Mackinnon: Kitten Eater (and she's rumored to hate both America and Jesus, too. She's also a rapper.)", was in fact appearing near the top of any google search for "Rebecca Mackinnon". Rebecca never mentioned the post to me, and I think she would have thought it was funny. Nevertheless, it just seemed wrong to allow "hates America and Jesus" to appear at the top of the search -- regardless of the fact that it is an obvious joke (apparently, there is a large segment of the population that doesn’t understand the concept of joking). Rebecca is a woman of robust moral fiber, and doesn't hate America or Jesus (though the jury is still out on the kitten eating though).

Then again, I may have just had too much coffee today... The new headline is "Anonymous Whistleblower Accuses Berkman Fellows of Ceremonially Feasting Upon Live Kittens"

Step One: Google "shit"

Step Two: Read whatever website google ranks as first.

Step Three: Tell me whether the author is right, or full of shit.

(Tip of the hat to the convesation at David Weinberger's blog that inspired this post.)

By James A. DewarThe Rand Corporation

We are in the midst of the "Information Age." Pundits have proclaimed it for years; articles in the popular press have plumbed its implications for every imaginable enterprise;[2] businesses are enamored with it; on-line and print magazines are devoted to it; government is wrestling with it, movies have been made about it; people are talking about it--can there be any doubt?

So, where will it all lead and why should we care? And what exactly is the Information Age anyway?

It is my intent in this paper to describe a way to think about what the Information Age is and where it will lead. And, put succinctly, we should all care because that way of thinking suggests the Information Age is likely to have profound effects throughout society—even if the specific effects are hard to see at this point.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. At this point I want to suggest that it is both important and difficult to see where the information age might lead. Important, not least, because gargantuan fortunes are there to be made for those who see the future clearly. Important also, because information is affecting a wide variety of human enterprises in significant ways (businesses are "flattening" and globalizing; people are buying faxes, cell phones and computers; schools are wiring themselves in anticipation; governments are scrambling to handle information age problems, etc.).

The media hath spoken: 2004 was the “year of the blog.” As we all know, whenever a broadcast and print media come to a consensus, a truth is born. Thus, we can relax. There is no need to put any further thought into the matter. Unfortunately, I have a bad habit of thinking. And as a result of my nasty habit, I believe the media has completely misunderstood what the blog represents: the first significant manifestation of much larger trend.

This powerful trend is two-fold:

• the rise of the network as a form of social organization.
• the freeing information from the constraints and limitations of the physical world.

In the first post of this series, we will explore the rise of the network through the lenses of history, and the social sciences.

Highlights from TRIBES, INSTITUTIONS, MARKETS, NETWORKS:

By David F. Ronfeldt, Senior Social Scientist of Rand Corporation

Power and influence appear to be migrating to actors who are skilled at developing multiorganizational networks, and at operating in environments where networks are an appropriate, spreading form of organization. In many realms of society, they are gaining strength relative to other, especially hierarchical forms. Indeed, another key proposition about the information revolution is that it erodes and makes life difficult for traditional hierarchies.

This trend — the rise of network forms of organization — is so strong that, projected into the future, it augurs major transformations in how societies are organized. What forms account for the organization of societies? How have people organized their societies across the ages? The answer may be reduced to four basic forms of organization: 1. the kinship-based tribe, as denoted by the structure of extended families, clans, and other lineage systems. 2. the hierarchical institution, as exemplified by the army, the (Catholic) church, and ultimately the bureaucratic state. 3. competitive-exchange market, as symbolized by merchants and traders responding to forces of supply and demand. 4. and the collaborative network, as found today in the web-like ties among some NGOs devoted to social advocacy.

Incipient versions of all four forms were present in ancient times. But as deliberate, formal organizational designs with philosophical portent, each has gained strength at a different rate and matured in a different historical epoch over the past 5000 years. Tribes developed first,hierarchical institutions next, and competitive markets later. Now collaborative networks appear to be on the rise as the next great form of organization to achieve maturity.

The rise of each form is briefly discussed below, as prelude to assembling the four in a framework—currently called the “TIMN framework”—about the long-range evolution of societies. The persistent argument is that these four forms—and evidently only these —underlie the organization of all societies, and that the historical evolution and increasing complexity of societies has been a function of the ability to use and combine these four forms of governance in what appears to be a natural progression.

While the tribal form initially ruled the overall organization of societies, over time it has come to define the cultural realm in particular, while the state has become the key realm of institutionist principles, and the economy of market principles. Civil society appears to be the realm most affected and strengthened by the rise of the network form, auguring a vast rebalancing of relations among state, market, and civil-society actors around the world.

Fascinating... Something tells me that experts in channelling and filtering "live" information will find more and more dollars in their pockets over the next few years.

Via Smartmobs