Web 2.0 and experts: a metaphor

I'm still thinking along the theme of Web 2.0, connectivity, education... and I have a metaphor to air. It has always concerned me that giving everyone a voice could be a double-edged sword, great because of the oppressed (whose voice needs to be heard), but lousy because of the loud-mouthed and highly opinionated.

The difficulty we face is that not all voices in a community are really worth listening to, or necessarily improve the quality of knowledge beyond that of a single expert. As an illustration, imagine the predicament of a referee in a high-stakes rugby game. A try is scored – or is it? Was the player pushed over the touch line before crossing the try line and placing the ball? The stadium erupts. The 'community' comes alive. The advice starts to ring out.

I’m sure that the entire watching public would be alarmed if the referee silenced the crowd, then pointed at one raving fan twelve rows back in the stadium (who has likely had one or two beers too many) and asked for their opinion, or sought to discern the various conversations taking place in the stands – even though this is somehow the fantasy of Web 2.0. The referee really has only one option – to ask the touch judge for their opinion. If still in doubt, the referee may request that the multiple camera angles used for televised games be replayed.

This metaphor for Web 2.0 in education and information distribution is worth dwelling on. Of course it is simplistic, but its point is to stir imagination. It is not a comprehensive critique. But consider the potential here for the ‘wisdom of the crowd’… there is the interesting possibility that the crowd may well select the fan in row twelve as the person having the opinion and perspective most worth listening to (particularly if they've paid Google to be promoted as worth listening to, and if the ref is not popular or considers the issue for too long).

Now, I feed this analogy into the blogosphere at a tender time for my fellow Kiwis, particularly since the ref was (probably) to blame for our early exit from the latest Rugby World Cup... but who said it was a tidy world? Of course, the television replay could be made available to the entire stadium (and often is), but it is the referee's objectivity and experience in interpreting the data that leads to the call one way or the other.

I'm not trying to suggest that the 'teacher' or 'expert' is beyond reproach; remember, I'm a Kiwi who watched the game against France. What I'd like to suggest though is that most of the time we can 'trust' an expert to generate information and decisions more reliable and objective than the 'crowd' can, even a crowd of peers interested in and 'armchair informed' about the same subject.