Search stinks, people rule.

Let’s face it web search engines are oftentimes frustratingly useless (don’t get me started on Technorati’s useless search engine). Take my recent Google search for “vga cables“. What I wanted to know is what the heck is a vga cable. What I got was a bunch of links to sites where I can purchase them. I thought perhaps a different sort of search engine might do me better, so I typed the following into Ask.com’s search box: “What is a vga cable”. Supposedly Ask understands plain English, so I expected to get results that looked like definitions, not store fronts. Alas, I was wrong. Ask’s results were nearly the same as those of Google. Please, somebody help me.

Dah-tah-dah…Jimmy Wales to the rescue. Well, it’s been almost a month since Wikia Search launched an alpha preview of its new-fangled search engine. By coincidence, I happened to discover Wikia Search on the very day of its release. Though the search engine wasn’t very useful (indeed, TechCrunch panned it fairly badly), I was incredibly excited about its potential (and it has a pretty interface, too).

Grass-roots works when enough people care. I figure that there are millions of people like me, tired of crappy search results. It may take a while for Wikia Search to mature, but once it does, it will break the Google monolith. Google doesn’t improve its search because it has no competitors. It’s acting like any monopoly would. This is a call to arms to all you wikipedians and fellow-travelers! Let’s hasten the fall of Google search (or preferably, it’s improvement).

 

Technology, not politics

For a while, I thought that politics was the way to change the world. I don’t mean that I wanted to run for office. When I think of politics, I think of a broad range of activities (supporting politicians, running for office, protesting against the government, vandalizing corporate property, etc.). My flavor of political activity was protesting (usually by sitting in a bar complaining about the state of the world, but occasionally with picket signs and marches). Since my early teenage years, I’ve felt the need to rebel against the status quo. Where this spirit came from, I know not. My mother is passive. My father is pure status quo. Perhaps they were a bit too old to become hippies, so they have maintained their 1950s conformity throughout their lives. But as I was saying, I’ve got the rebel streak. Not too long ago, my interest in politics really came to a head. I became involved with people whose lives are centered on political protest and organization. Loosely, they could be described as socialists. I guess I would loosely describe myself as a socialist (or more specifically, a libertarian-socialist). I thought that this was the way to change the world. Organize and scream and eventually things may change. Now, I disagree.

What brought about this change? Well, though I was “fighting” for a world that was rid of hierarchy (i.e., a world of power differentials), my methods were centered in the struggle for power. Protesting, even when “non-violent”, is a very active, very powerful endeavor. Indeed, what drives protesters is the notion that, through collective power, a group of individually-weak people can unseat a group of stronger (albeit, fewer in number) individuals. I now see the paradox: a power struggle to eliminate power.

So what is the alternative? Well, I think that technology is a great alternative. Direct action, like protesting, can cause quick results. Think about the Montgomery Bus Boycott. It took a few months for the boycotters to achieve their victory (desegregation of buses), but given how monumental this victory was, I would say that this was a rapid response to direct action. The problem with direct action is that it doesn’t always achieve the intended results (consider all the strikes that end in the employer’s favor), and even when the results are positive, the tide can easily turn a short time later.

Technology, on the other hand, has a more insidious, but longer-lasting effect on humanity. For instance, the national highway system gave birth to American suburbia, but the roots of this change lie in the invention of the automobile, decades prior to the Eisenhower’s highways project. It took many years for the automobile to transform the average American from city-dweller to suburban kings and queens, but that process continues unabated.

Democracy, that wonderful ideal that replaced hereditary power, arose due to technology. By selling technology (like books, for instance), the Europeans of the Middle Ages began to get rich again, and with their new wealth, the burgeoning middle class had more time on their hands to think about how rotten feudalism was. Eventually (centuries later), the Enlightenment arose, and with it came the death of many kings. Again, I argue that without technology, this slow but lasting change might never have occurred.

So back to me. The rebel in me has always been there, and it continues to thrive. However, the geek in me, has come to the forefront lately. I now realize that geeks may be more effective than passionate protesters. “Experts” are losing their livelihood to Wikipedians. Professionals are giving way to amateurs. How is this happening? Via technology. I am certain that blogs and wikis and the like are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to anarchic technologies. The geeks, if properly encouraged, will continue to flatten this world of ours. I still have the potential to live another 70 years. I think that if I last that long, I’ll begin to see the real results of what we’re doing now with our blogs and wikis and social networks. Hopefully the rest of you social software enthusiasts will keep this in mind. One blog post will not change the world, but with time, our combined work will profoundly influence humanity.

 

Luminaries of social technology in the work place

I’ve been digging around the blogosphere to learn what’s already been published about the use of socially-oriented technology in the work place. One name that was repeatedly mentioned is Andrew McAfee (a Harvard professor of business). I have yet to extensively peruse his blog, but I was really impressed with his most recent entry on widening the flow. In this posting, he builds upon the work of his friend Michael Idinopulos, who argues that “in-the-flow” wikis enjoy heavier usage than “above-the-flow” wikis. By “in-the-flow”, Micheal means work that is part of one’s daily routine. Email would be “in-the-flow” for most people, for example. Hand-writing a letter would be an example of an “above-the-flow” activity.

CIOs beware! If you’re considering purchasing an enterprise wiki (or similar technology), you should consider the expectations for how the wiki will be used. Thinking in terms of flow is, in my opinion, a great way to judge the pros and cons of spending money on a new app. If I were a CIO, I’d sit down with other management types and discuss how best to make the wiki be an “in-the-flow” tool. It would be in my best interest to encourage heavy usage if I wanted to avoid be blamed for purchasing a useless novelty. Thankfully, I’m a lowly worker who needs not worry about such C-level concerns.

 

Begin again

My first venture into the blogosphere began a few months ago with the initial version of the ‘son blog. In that iteration, I tried to write about some of my hobbies: reading spy fiction, designing web pages, and discussing consumer health informatics. Each of these evoke passionate feelings inside me; however, I am not certain that any of these passions are very generative. I’ve decided that blogging about my other significant passion, anti-social-hierarchism (also known as social anarchism), would be much more constructive.

I’m an amateur geek, so I’ve decided that the best way for me to promote social anarchy is to discuss technologies that chip away at social hierarchy. Wikis are an excellent example of anti-elitist technologies. An ideal (in the Platonic sense of the word ideal) wiki has no hierarchy of user privileges. In other words, an ideal wiki permits any user to modify its content as he or she sees fit. It is my belief that the more we use technologies like wikis (and blogs for that matter), the closer we will get to social anarchy. I abandoned politics because the essence of politics is power (i.e., uneven distribution of influence across a population). It seemed paradoxical to use political methods to achieve social anarchy. Technology, on the other hand, is not inherently rooted in power. It is true that technology can be harnessed to achieve power, but it can also be employed to build equity. This is my goal: use technology to rid us of social hierarchy.

Happy reading!