In order to prove to customers that its software wouldn't break down under heavy use, the AskMe Corporation decided to create a website that offered a version of its software to the wider public. AskMe.com was launched in February 2000 and quickly became one of the most popular knowledge exchange sites, drawing ten million users in the first year. The advice on the site was freely offered by self-appointed experts who were ranked by the people who sought out there advice.
In June 2000, Marcus Allen registered as a legal expert. Allen became a prolific responder, answering, in one two week period, 939 out of the 943 he received. By the end of July he was the 3rd ranked expert on criminal law at AskMe.com.
But then Allen made a change to his online profile: he admitted he was only 15 year old high school student. The lawyers on the site attacked and drove his rankings down. But the people to whom Allen gave advice still supported him and within a month he rebounded to become the AskMe.com's #1 ranked legal expert.
On the surface, this incident may be read as a cautionary tale about trusting the Internet's self-professed experts. But what about the people who were satisfied with Allen's answers? There is no evidence that the teenager's answers were inadequate --at least not any more so than the average law school graduate. The problem appears not to be with inaccuracy but with our need for reliable authority.
In a pyramid-shaped, hierarchical authorities (e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica, universities), information is judged based on the reputation of the authority. We trust the accuracy of information in an encyclopedia article because it has been filtered through editors and is backed by a trusted authority (the Encyclopedia Britannica Company). In pancake-shaped, non-hierarchical authorities (e.g., Wikipedia, the Internet), information is judged based on the reputation of the distributed accountability system. We trust (for the most part) the accuracy of information in a Wikipedia article because it has been filtered through hundreds, even thousands of self-appointed editors and is backed by an error-correction system that is open to public accountability.
Pitting pyramid-shaped versus pancake-shaped authorities may produce interesting debates. The science journal Nature spurred a minor tempest after a peer-review survey found that Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries. But both models have their merits and since most information distributed by "pancake" authorities is produced by "pyramid" authorities, the dichotomy can be a false one.
The more interesting question is not what authorities are trustworthy but in how we make such evaluations. I believe the primary basis for almost all authority is reputation. We trust the entries in the Encyclopedia Britannica not because we know the editors to be authoritative, but because millions of other people also trust the accuracy of the entries. We also have a belief (a justified, true belief, I would argue) that at least some of these millions of people would have caught the errors and reported them to Britannica. In other words, we trust that an error-correction system similar to the one at Wikipedia is in effect at Britannica.
Encyclopedias, though, tend to deal with "facts" that are more or less established. What about information that is contestable and or open to interpretation? In such instances, the reputation of the error-correction systems is replaced with a system that bases error-correction on reputation. A loose parallel can be found between the pancake-shaping information revolution and the Protestant Reformation.
Prior to the Reformation, the Catholic Church (a classic pyramid-shaped institution) was the sole authority on matters of theology. The reformers came along and created a flatter pancake-shaped structure by making the Bible accessible to the individual Christian and promoting the concept of the "priesthood of the believer." This did not, however, remove all authority or relativize theology. Instead of relying on the authority of the Church appointed priest, the individual believer was forced to decide for themselves who could be deemed an authority. Protestant Christians had to rely on their own powers of discernment (and those of their neighbors) to decide who was worthy of being considered authoritative. Based on the reputation of these "self-appointed" authorities--especially of such figures as Martin Luther and John Calvin--new pyramid-shaped error-correcting institutions were created.
The information reformation appears to be following a similar pattern. Information handed down by hierarchical authorities who we perceive as biased or who do not share our worldview is often viewed with skepticism. We prefer to place our trust in authority figures we have already vetted and whose reputation is validated by like-minded individuals. This leads to both a flattening of hierarchical authority and the creation of new pyramid-shaped authority figures. For example, just as some Christians shifted from the Catholic to the Presbyterian Church, some people shift from CNN to Fox News.
The pressing question is what effect this fragmentation of authority will have on society. Although it has occasionally suffered further schism, the Protestant church generally holds a core of shared beliefs (e.g., the Nicene Creed) and texts (e.g., the Bible) while differing on the "non-essentials." Will such institutions as the government and the media be able to maintain a similar balance? What will America look like if we all have a libertarian attitude about what constitutes a reliable authority?
Note: The anecdote about Marcus Allen and the pancake/pyramid metaphor are taken from Michael Lewis's Next: The Future Just Happened.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4076
1
Sometimes I read the decisions that are arrived at by the SCOTUS and I wonder how anyone can take them seriously as the body most fit to judge the law and constitution, especially the latter. Since some of their rulings are breathtakingly simplistic, and have the same attention to detail and unintended consequences that one would expect from a teenager, I'm not surprised that a 15 year old might be a competent legal advisor...
posted on 12.13.2007 2:53 AM2
There is no evidence that the teenager's answers were inadequate --at least not any more so than the average law school graduate. The problem appears not to be with inaccuracy but with our need for reliable authority.
The problem, in this case, is one of accountability: if someone followed the teenager's legal advice and got screwed as a result, and THEN it turned out that said advice did not come from a lawyer who had passed the bar exam and been qualified and licenced to practice law, who would be at fault? Could the kid, or his parents, be sued for providing bad advice under false pretenses? Could AskMe be sued? Or would the victim of the bad advice be SOL because he had failed to exercise due dilligence to ensure that he was getting his advice from qualified professionals?
(Local court bureaucrats are forbidden, as a rule, from giving "legal advice" to the people whose paperwork they handle; this includes answering questions about what paperwork one is supposed to file in which case -- something which I, for one, think they're paid to know, since it's their job to take the paperwork, see whether it's complete, and help to process it. As maddening as this rule is, I can see the point of it: they're not just keeping the lawyers employed, they're covering their own asses by minimizing their involvement in legal disputes whose details they don't know.)
We also have a belief (a justified, true belief, I would argue) that at least some of these millions of people would have caught the errors and reported them to Britannica. In other words, we trust that an error-correction system similar to the one at Wikipedia is in effect at Britannica.
You're omitting one very crucial step: objective verification. We trust them to correct errors ONLY if we fail to see errors in their work. The more errors we see (i.e., the more their statements conflict with what we observe), the less we trust them to have an error-correction system in place.
The pressing question is what effect this fragmentation of authority will have on society.
It will force people to act like adults, think for themselves, evaluate the "authorities" based on objective facts and results, and take responsibility for their own decisions. It will also force the "authorities" to account for their pronouncements and prove their worth by their actions. In other words, a republican form of government.
Although it has occasionally suffered further schism, the Protestant church generally holds a core of shared beliefs (e.g., the Nicene Creed) and texts (e.g., the Bible) while differing on the "non-essentials."
"Differing," in this case, is far too mild a word. Try "fighting bitter, bloody, vindictive sectarian wars and killing people who questioned the Eternal Truth du Jour."
Will such institutions as the government and the media be able to maintain a similar balance? What will America look like if we all have a libertarian attitude about what constitutes a reliable authority?
It will look pretty much like it looks today, because that's what the American people have already been doing since the Mayflower Compact. So if you want an answer to that question, just look at America, then compare it to other places where there's less "fragmentation of authority."
posted on 12.13.2007 11:00 AM3
Raging Bee,
"Differing," in this case, is far too mild a word. Try "fighting bitter, bloody, vindictive sectarian wars and killing people who questioned the Eternal Truth du Jour."
I can't think of any wars fought between protestants over doctrinal differences, can you enlighten me? Obviously, European history is rife with cathilic v. protestant conflicts, but your charge of protestant v. protestant wars is on shaky ground.
posted on 12.13.2007 12:28 PM4
Oclarki,
While not a war per se, "bloody" could certainly be used in describing intra-Protestant relations at various times. The story of Servetus' treatment in Calvin's Geneva comes to mind if you'd like an example. Of course some will debate whether Servetus was an orthodox Protestant, but if you take that argument far enough, the argument that Protestants have treated each other peacefully becomes a tautology.
As a disclaimer, I consider myself in the Reformed wing of evangelical Protestantism, so if anyone's being called out in this comment, it is my own camp.
In my personal opinion, Protestants are not to be praised for their exemplary behavior (although there have of course been great deeds of mercy and faith in the name of Protestantism). Protestants are to be praised for the fact that they teach full admission and repentance to God for their sins against Him.
posted on 12.13.2007 8:54 PM5
The problem, in this case, is one of accountability: if someone followed the teenager's legal advice and got screwed as a result, and THEN it turned out that said advice did not come from a lawyer who had passed the bar exam and been qualified and licenced to practice law, who would be at fault?
In this case the person who would be held accountable would be the person who took the advice. That has nothing to do with the 15 year kid, though. If you want to hold your legal advisor accountable then you have to pay him which means you have to hire a real lawyer. Not only that, if you really wanted accountability you would need to not only hire a real lawyer but make sure his malpractice insurance is sufficient to insure his advice to you. If you were a multi-billion dollar company you may even want to examine his malpractice company to make sure they have the financial strength to back up their policy!
This would be a lot clearer if lawyers were not the topic. If, for example, the Askme expert was giving advice on building webpages you wouldn't care if he was 15 years old...in fact you may consider that a plus. If you were having a web page built for a major product and needed 'accountability' you would still seek to hire someone who was a professional and enter a contractual relationship with him that would allow you to sue if he screwed up. If your company's web site gets fried and you tell your boss you were following the advice of the Askme expert you'd get the blunt end of that 'accountability'.
Fragmentation
It will force people to act like adults, think for themselves, evaluate the "authorities" based on objective facts and results, and take responsibility for their own decisions. It will also force the "authorities" to account for their pronouncements and prove their worth by their actions. In other words, a republican form of government.
This is to be hoped but Joe had an interesting post a while ago about 'X-Cons', basically young conservatives. One of the elements he identified with them was that talk radio taught them to "appreciate confirmation of one's own political views. Arguments needn't be persuasive if you know not only that you are right and your opponent is wrong but also that you are right and they are wrong-headed." (emphasis mine).
In other words, in a fragmented world you develop what I called on my blog 'bubble factories'. People will manufacture their own confirmations whether or not that has any link to actual reality. People with a like mind will easily create media that reinforces their views. Since it is cheaper to create media today whether that be blogs, TV, radio or whatnot you need to get less 'buy in' from people who don't share your mindset. People with a like mindset will then cross reference themselves. For example, right wing blogers will cite right wing think tanks who will then feed Fox News and so on.
Just because I cited the right, that doesn't mean a 'bubble factory' can't develop anywhere. All you need is a group with a similiar mindset but slightly different interests. Those who take an academic route will create material supporting their view, those who become bloggers will cite that material, those in think tanks will do the same, news media likewise will enlist pundits who will also feed on this and so on.
The answer is 'pins'. Or to use a less glamerous word 'trolls'. Those who lurk in the comments sections, discussion boards etc. who take contrary views. They will throw sand in the machines that make these bubbles by seeking out false facts, logical flaws and so on. The 'pins' aren't necessarily smarter than the bubble makers, it's that their existence inhibits the manufacture of bubbles.
Therefore probably the best way to trust fragmented authority is to ask how open it really is to 'pins'. Pins take different forms, though. I don't think comments are very useful in big papers like the NY Times the 'pins' have been highly respected commentators from the other side such as William Safire in the NYT or George Will in the Washington Post. On blogs the 'pins' are more organic in the form of commentors that sit behind the page.
Pins are a good feedback mechanism in a culture of fragmented authority but the ultimate is reality itself. Nothing says "bad legal advice" better than a bunch of clients facing jail time for taking it. Hence most of us are pretty skeptical of claims of people who say paying income tax is voluntary or you are immune from criminal law if you declare yourself a 'nation'....even when these claims are made by people who say they are lawyers or have respectable sounding resumes. With religion, though, I'd question if this ultimate feedback is there. Unless you buy into reincarnation the people who get dropped in hell aren't coming back here to tell us about it so there is no cost being felt now for wrong beliefs...hence all we can tell from an established religion is that it appears to have beliefs that provide some measure of comfort for those right now...but does that tell us they are 'correct' beliefs?
posted on 12.17.2007 11:47 AM6
Joe, I'm not sure that the fragmentation you speak of didn't always exist. What we have now are more choices of whom to listen to.
Another factor is the nature of leaders and followers -- the causes for why people accept and follow, or dissent, or dissent and lead. (Most leaders are also followers, and therefore many followers are also leaders. *sigh* It's all so complicated.)
Your question about libertarianism is also complicated, and interesting as it relates to the church. I don't think many of the current evangelical (Protestant) leaders truly accept a libertarian view of authority. At the same time, it's probably impossible (and non-recommendable) to entirely avoid hierarchical systems of authority.
However, if both "leaders" and "followers" were benevolent and properly respectful, perhaps then the entire question (as far as the church goes) would be moot.
Oclarki, there may not be any actual military battles going on among Protestants but no question there are wars -- ideological and theological wars -- which in some ways might be worse.
posted on 12.20.2007 2:43 PM