Opinion Sur Joven

We are in the 2.0 era, with collaboration-based models that are radically changing our concept of the world. Through education and access to information and communication media, inter-subjective relationships (whether between individuals, groups or entire societies) are changing and acquiring their own mechanisms and rules. So is this the end of differences and the beginning of a progress era in egalitarian conditions? Or, on the contrary, is it an exacerbation of the gaps between individuals and communities, generating an even more inequitable world?

All for one, and one for all

Gestalt psychology claims that an organized whole is more than the sum of its parts. This concept applies to the collaborative era. Humanity’s knowledge as a whole is greater than every individual expert’s. Today, knowledge can be accessed from any territory and at any moment through the Internet and a few clicks. The status quo is challenged and, at the same time, all kinds of participants -who up to that moment had remained aside, blind and dumb- become integrated.

The trigger: Web 2.0

Collaboration-based development models were created as the Internet advanced. It is said that communication used to move downwards: from the boss to the employee, from the teacher to the student, from parents to children, from dominant countries to underdeveloped countries. Said communication scheme would later be called 1.0. Today we’re supposedly at the 2.0 stage. From this moment on, the learning structure loses its hierarchical verticality to become horizontal, generating the construction of the so-called “collaborative knowledge”, derived from “collective intelligence”.

Chris Anderson is one of the most important theoreticians in Internet-related issues. In his book “The Long Tail”, he describes the differences between this interconnected world and the one that existed some years ago: “Talent is not universal but is widely spread– give enough people the capacity to create and gems may emerge”. Basically, his concept expresses that in the past everyone was able to produce knowledge but distributing it was very difficult, therefore it was unknown. Now, thanks to communication technologies, showing it is easier. And perhaps an unknown philosopher’s small idea is read by few people (fewer than those who read Aristotle’s ideas in the history of humanity) but generates new ideas, multiplying the creative possibilities.

Which side are you on?

When Internet sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Blogger and Wikispaces were launched, most people were unable to understand their magnitude. Those systems were considered invasive, a waste of time or useless tools. But certain visionaries understood the real power of these networks and the new development focuses they generated.

The three legs

The tool is the less important element: social networks, wikis or blogs are some of the ever-changing technologies used to exchange information.

Therefore, thinking about the Web 2.0 doesn’t imply creating a new tool. Rather than a tactic, Web 2.0 is a strategy based on the idea that knowledge does not move downwards in hierarchy, but is created, developed, expanded and increased in all directions. It’s about realizing that, if it only “comes down”, knowledge will never reach the same magnitude as if generated between equals.

The current collaboration model legitimates definitions, tribes, processes and dogmas as collective elements. It’s within this context that Wikipedia managed to outdo Encyclopaedia Britannica. Made in real time and informed by numerous sources, they constitute new knowledge ways. Of course that, despite the attraction these modern information mechanisms generate, there’s still a necessity to create a sort of editorial committee to validate and guarantee the veracity or accuracy of said knowledge.

I learn, you learn, he/she learns?

The collaboration era offers multiple opportunities to countries, societies and people. But as long as they’re able to reach them. That’s when a parallel phenomenon called “digital divide” appears: if the world gradually becomes more dependent on technology, those who have no access to information and communication means are left behind.

The ability to adapt to the changing market conditions developed by new technology and information technologies will be the parameter to determine who the main players will be, and which ones will be excluded from this new world. The gap between the global knowledge of a community and the ignorance of the underdeveloped ones is getting bigger.

Over the last years, computers and the Internet have turned from luxury goods for just a few to a basic need to become someone for many. They are sociability elements that enable the connection with shared knowledge. So, to make this shared knowledge ideal come true, it’s necessary to generate mechanisms to reduce that gap and allow including everyone in the digital world… the 2.0 world.

Illustration: Guadalupe Giani

If you liked this article, please subscribe by clicking here