Digital Information Quality

From Youth and Media
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Narratives

TVNewser

When people in the television news business want to catch up with the newest gossip in the industry, they turn to a blog called TVNewser. TVNewser was created three years ago by Brian Stelter, then an 18-year old digital native studying at Towson University. Brian initially concealed his identity so that his growing audience would take him seriously. People thought that he was a bald disgruntled 40-something executive and obsessively checked his blog to keep up with the latest news.

Today, Brian’s identity is revealed but the whole industry still pays attention to his blog. In the meanwhile, Brian is a senior majoring in mass communication and the editor of the student newspaper. By 9 am, he is awake and blogs about the newest gossip and events in the news media industry from his apartment as well as in class, the student union, and his desk in a corner of the newspaper office. Brian has earned the grudging trust of many of his readers, who e-mail him hundreds of Tipps a day that often translate into scoops. The biggest TV executives, such as Jonathan Klein, president of CNN’s national news division, look at this kid’s Web site all the time. Despite his youth and inexperience, Brian is generally thought of as a reliable reporter in the industry.

Source: Bosman, J: The Kid With All the News About the TV News, in: The New York Times, 11/20/2006.


Dr. Google

My children have in recent weeks decided that they have leprosy, irritable bowel syndrome and Lyme disease.

“I’m contagious,” my 9-year-old said, looking up from the laptop on which she had just typed her symptoms one morning last week. “I shouldn’t go to school with strip throat.” “It’s strep throat,” I said, not looking up from my breakfast. “And you don’t have it. So go get dressed.”

In the old days, children dreaded a visit to the pediatrician, where getting a shot was always a possibility. But now that Dr. Google makes house calls, mine spend hours online typing queries into search boxes to investigate symptoms — “Mom, does this image of ringworm look like the thing on my leg?” — before printing out proof that they should not be required to walk the dog in the cold. Nobody is really sick at my house; the suspected ringworm turned out to be nothing more than an elastic mark from a sock. But my children definitely are exhibiting the symptoms of a new syndrome. By taking their symptoms online without the benefit of stethoscopes, much less medical degrees, they are following in the footsteps of plenty of grown-ups. As a host of recent studies show, a growing number of people — as many as 40 percent of the 39,000 adults surveyed for a 2006 Consumer Reports study — are researching their medical conditions online.

But those people are getting mixed results. According to the same survey, 41 percent of primary-care physicians reported that patients arrived in their office armed with bad information they found on the Internet. The American Medical Association, which warns that Web sites with inaccurate information may confuse people or even endanger their health, cautions patients not to consult Dr. Google instead of a real M.D.

Literally citation from: Amilias, C.: Visits to doctors who are not in, ever, in: The New York Times, 05/24/2007.

Divided Opinions on Wikipedia

„I was at a college graduation ceremony yesterday, and when one of the student speakers mentioned Wikipedia the graduates broke into applause. "Now we can finally admit that we use Wikipedia for research," the speaker continued. That brought another round of cheers from the kids as well as some futile boos and hisses from parents and faculty." (Nicolas Carr)

Depending on your lights, Wikipedia is either one of the noblest experiments of the Internet age or a nightmare embodiment of relativism and the withering of intellectual standards.

Distracting Gadgets and Attention Deficits in Schools

"Now that computers are a staple in schools around the country, perhaps the machines should come with a warning label for teachers: 'Beware: Students may no longer hear a word you say.'

Today 80 percent of public schools have high-speed Internet access in at least one classroom, according to Market Data Retrieval, an education research company. Among colleges, 69 percent have classroom Internet access and 70 percent have wireless networks. Students start tapping away behind laptop lids with no way for professors to know if they are taking notes or checking Hotmail.

'I've never been in a lecture where I haven't seen someone checking their e-mail when they were supposed to be doing stuff,' said Bill Walsh, a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Instant messages, news tickers and games like solitaire beckon too.

Joe Huber, the technology coordinator for the public schools in Greenwood, Ind., said that teachers routinely complain about gadget-distraction among students. 'It is a huge problem with anyone who teaches with any kind of technology,' he said.

Even in rooms without computers or Internet access, students have other devices to draw their attention away from academics. Cellphones may be prohibited at many schools, but that doesn't stop students from putting them on vibrate and trading text messages under their desks. That is, when they aren't fiddling with their organizers or music players. Teachers have started to fight back. All agree that the best weapon against attention deficit is the same one that worked before the dawn of computers: strong teaching. But new strategies don't hurt, either. Some teachers have found, in fact, that the best defense against the distractions of technology is other technology. Here are five examples of teachers who are fighting fire with fire."

Counter-strategies adopted by teachers:

- use of (interactive) games in classroom

- threat to reboot without saving assignment

- classroom layout that allows teacher to watch students' laptops screens (MIT)

- remote controlled student computers, e.g. with option to "freeze" operations when teacher explains

From Lisa Guernsey, When Gadgets Get in the Way, N.Y. Times, Aug. 19, 2004, at 1.


Reliability of New Intermediaries

[- Wikipedia: John Seigenthaler (involvement in JFK's assassination), Adam Curry ("inventor" of podcasting), danah boyd (how to fix your own bio), Tron controversy] 24129770415337984575495

Problems

The Information Quality Challenge

(from Urs' essay draft)

a) information quality = “reference to a set of characteristics aimed at stating whether a ‘message’ meets the functional, cognitive, aesthetic, and ethical requirements of different stakeholders, such as information creators, administrators, users, experts, etc.”

b) Current safeguards for information quality mostly apply to traditional (mass-scale, demand-driven) media (dominated by small number of professionals in commercial, hierarchical, centralized media companies):

- Indirect ex ante regulation of broadcasting, for instance, in Europe

- Code of Practices (e.g. UK), Press Councils, Ombudsmen

- Code of Ethics, voluntarily adopted by news organizations and media companies

- Ex post interventions, like lawsuits against libel, defamation

c) Now, new modes of information production (large number of non-professionals involved; highly decentralized; different set of principles and motivations)

- Large-scale context shifts

- High level of access to information

- Quality assessment at the edges (users)

Attention Deficit Disorder/Cognitive Overload

From an cant you pay attention anymore/2008-1022_3-5637632.html interview with psychiatrist Edward Hallowell

Q: What is ADT?

A: It's sort of like the normal version of attention deficit disorder. But it's a condition induced by modern life, in which you've become so busy attending to so many inputs and outputs that you become increasingly distracted, irritable, impulsive, restless and, over the long term, underachieving. In other words, it costs you efficiency because you're doing so much or trying to do so much, it's as if you're juggling one more ball than you possibly can.

Q: Are some people just better at multitasking than others?

A: No one really multitasks. You just spend less time on any one thing. When it looks like you're multitasking--you're looking at one TV screen and another TV screen and you're talking on the telephone--your attention has to shift from one to the other. You're brain literally can't multitask. You can't pay attention to two things simultaneously. You're switching back and forth between the two. So you're paying less concerted attention to either one.

I think in general, why some people can do well at what they call multitasking is because the effort to do it is so stimulating. You get adrenaline pumping that helps focus your mind. What you're really doing is focusing better at brief spurts on each stimulus. So you don't get bored with either one.

Q: Do you think this is a generational thing? Kids now are growing up with e-mail, cell phones and so on. Maybe they'll be able to cope better than we do?

A: I think maybe they'll be more adept with these tools when they get to the workplace, but I think the same principles will apply. How you allocate your time and your attention is crucial. What you pay attention to and for how long really makes a difference. If you're just paying attention to trivial e-mails for the majority of your time, you're wasting time and mental energy. It's the great seduction of the information age. You can create the illusion of doing work and of being productive and creative when you're not. You're just treading water.


From Seven, Life Interrupted, Seattle Times (2004)

"'We have so many options, reward centers that we never had before,' says John Ratey, who teaches at Harvard and is a psychiatrist specializing in attention deficit disorder. 'I think that's why we're seeing more of this. There are more demands on our attention and less training for us to stop and take it all in. We seem to be amazing ourselves to death.'

This is of particular interest when it comes to children who have grown up in the fast lane where Web pages that take more than five seconds to load are considered lame. Is the speed and ease compromising their attention spans? Their perspective? Their humanity? Even their work ethic? Or are we just threatened that they will lap us old fogies?

Little is understood about the Information Age's effect on this generation, but it is a burgeoning area of research. Ratey wonders if kids would read 'The Red Badge of Courage' to complete their homework or simply comb the Internet for essays explaining it all for them."


From Jiang et al.: We weren't made to multitask (2004):

"It's readily apparent that handling two things at once is much harder than handling one thing at a time. Spend too much time trying to juggle more than one objective and you'll end up wanting to get rid of all your goals besides sleeping. The question is, though, what makes it so hard to process two things at once?

Two theories try to explain this phenomenon: "passive queuing" and "active monitoring." The former says that information has to line up for a chance at being processed at some focal point of the brain, while the latter suggests that the brain can process two things at once - it just needs to use a complicated mechanism to keep the two processes separate. Recent research from MIT points to the former as an explanation.

Yuhong Jiang, Rebecca Saxe and Nancy Kanwisher, in a study (...) examined the brain activity involved in multitasking. They gave people two simple tasks. Task one was identifying shapes, and for some subjects, task two was identifying letters, for others it was identifying colors. The subjects were forced to switch from one task to the other in either one and a half seconds or one tenth of a second. When they had to switch faster, subjects would take as much as twice as long to respond than when switching more slowly.

Using MRI technology, Jiang, Saxe and Kanwisher examined subjects' brain activity while performing these tasks. They observed no increase in the sort of activity that would be involved in keeping two thought processes separate when subjects had to switch faster. This suggests that there are no complicated mechanisms that allow people to perform two tasks at once. Instead, we have to perform the next task only after the last one is finished."


Digital amnesia: somewhat counter-intuitively, huge amounts of information are simply forgotten or cannot be read anymore after some time; Stewart Brand: “Information lasts forever. Digital information lasts forever or for five years, whichever comes first.”; "digital dark age"

Reliability of new navigators: how to dissect relevant from irrelevant information? (see wikipedia cases)

"Digital me": fragmentation of audiences, implications for DNs' understanding of democracy (cp. Sunstein's Republic.com)

Related concepts: information overload, information pollution, interruption overload

Alternative ways of framing the problem:

Attention as a scarce resource: problem can be framed as attention shortage, rather than information overload; how to allocate one's attention efficiently? (Franck, Goldhaber)

Adaptation to a new signaling environment: It seems that it is not necessarily the sheer increase in the amount of information and the diversity of sources that are the problem. For example, if someone put me in a helicopter and dropped me off in the middle of the Amazonian jungle, I would most likely suffer from severe information overload, too. Thus, another way of looking at the phenonemon could be through the lense of signaling theory. The adaptive challenge would be less in the tidal wave of information, but rather our ability to adequately interpret signals in online environments and differentiate reliable from deceptive signals. Judith Donath of MIT's Media Lab is writing a book on that approach.

Solutions

(from Urs' essay draft)

Markets

- Reputation systems

- Quality labels, trustmarks

Social Norms

- Codes of conduct for bloggers, transparency

- Policies and guidelines at Wikipedia, Netiquette

Code

- Rating, filtering (ICRA, content advisor)

- Meta-data: tagging as a collaborative way to organize information according to folksonomies, (i.e. emergent grassroots taxonomies), see, e.g., Weinberger: Why Tagging Matters

- Specialized software to find content on hard drives, see Metz, PCMag: Conquer Information Overload (2003) (example of Jim Crowe, promoter at Atlantic records)

- Syndication, content aggregators, see Bradbury, FT: Might RSS Help To Solve Your Web Mess?

Law

- Disclosure standards in health regulation (quality standards, procedural requirements, etc.)

- Truth-in-advertising regulation

- Right to correct wrong information

Behavior/Learning (training the dot in the middle)

- Accelerated learning techniques to improve speed and comprehension, e.g. speed reading, see Fifield, FT: Cut through acres of type to the fast lane (2004)

Miscellaneous ideas

Can increased collaboration aka Web 2.0 be interpreted as a response to information overload? If passive consumption becomes increasingly difficult and partly even unfeasible in view of an ever more diverse and abundant information environment, then web 2.0 strategies like tagging, remixing, mash-ups, and shared bookmarks can be regarded as essential tools to autonomously structure one's information environment. This reveals an interesting paradoxon of today's Internet: the very technologies we see at the heart of the information overload problem simultaneously provide us with the tools to combat it.

Relevant Research

General

Eppler, M., Helfert, M., Gasser, U.: Information Quality: Organizational, technological, and legal perspectives, 2004.

International Conference on Information Quality, MIT.

Data Management and Information Quality Conference

Information Quality: WWW Virtual Library.

Kovacs, M.: Search Engines: Their Necessity and Potential Danger.

MIT Dissertations on Information Quality.

Pew Internet: Youth Presentation Singapore, 2003.

Pew Internet: Health Care, 2002.

Wikipedia: Information Quality.

Wikipedia: Data Quality.

Saffo, P.: It's the Context, Stupid, in: Wired Magazine, 1994.

White, A.: The WSIS in Geneva on Pluralism, Media Quality and Work in the Information Society: The Journalists’ Perspective, 2005.

Gasser, Urs: Information Quality and the Law, or, How to Catch a Difficult Horse (2003).

Studies in Communication Science on Information Quality, 2004.

Loreto, A.: Towards a physiological communication in the information society, the world summit in reflection, 2003.

Berkman Center, Global Networked Readiness for Education, 2005.

The Virtual Case: Evaluating the Quality of Information on the Internet

Data Protection Watchdogs' Letter to Google Goes Public, in: The Register, 05.31.2007.

Vance, A.: How to fix your Kid's Education for $200m, in: The Register, 05.16.2007.

Report raises child index alarm, Protection Measures Could Put Children More at Risk, in: The Register 11.22.2006.

Davies, W.: Ask.com's Bogus Information Revolution, in: The Register 05.29.2007 (article about Intermediaries).

Hansell, S.: Google Keeps Tweaking its Search Engine, in: The New York Times 07.01.2007 (article about Google's search-quality team).

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Informations- und Datenqualität

Peer Reviewed Journals

Wikipedia

Orlowski, A.: Wikipedia founder admits to serous quality problems, in: The Register, 05.18.2005.

Cohen, N.: After False Claim, Wikipedia to Check Degrees, in: The New York Times 03.12.2007.

Dee, J.: All the News That's Fit for Print, in: The New York Times 07.01.2007.

Trediman, D.: Dancing with Jimmy Wales, in: News.com, 05.14.2007 (Article about Wikipedia, Wikia, Wikipedia's new open-source search machine).

Wizards of Open Source.

Tech Chanel: Wikipedia to highlight quality issues, 2006.

Giles, J.: Internet Encyclopaedia go head to head, in: Nature 2006.

Britannica's Reaction on Nature Magazine's Comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica, 2006.

Netzpolitik: Vorschau Wizards.

LWN.net: Summary of Contributions at the Wizard Conference, 2006.

Kintz, E.: Wikipedia's Rising Power, Auccarcy and Relevancy for Marketing

Adler, L./Alfaro, B.: A Content Driven Reputation System for the Wikipedia.

Stvilia/Twidale/Gasser/LcSmith: Information Quality Discussions in Wikipedia, 2005.

Helm B.: "Wikipedia, a work in progress", in: BusinessWeek, 2005.

Stvilia/Twidale/Gasser/LcSmith: Information Quality Work Organization in Wikipedia.

Narratives

Bosman, J.: The kid with all the news about TV news. NYT, 28.12.2006

Amilias, C.: Visits to doctors who are not in, ever. NYT, 24.05.2007

Documents

Brenner, et al.: Qualität im Internet: Technische und wirtschaftliche Entwicklungsperspektiven, St. Gallen 2007.

Burkert, H.: Law and Information Quality - Some Skeptical Observations, 2004.

Gasser, U.: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: An Essay on Information Quality Governance on the Internet (Draft 2006).

Gasser, U.: Information Quality and the Internet, presentation at Harvard Law School, April 2004.