Thanks

David Weinberger’s keynote asked “What’s up with knowledge?” He took a (humorous) sledgehammer to the foundations of information and library science, including the infamous DIKW (data - information - knowledge - wisdom) model. In his view, DIKW gets causality backwards–one needs knowledge and wisdom to get useful information, not the other way around. At the same time, he argued, traditional sources (the New York Times serving as poster boy) favor authority over transparency, whereas the new open, collaboratively-created sources (Wikipedia, standing in for a host of “social media” sites like Digg, del.icio.us, and the blogosphere as a whole) favor transparency. In particular, Wikipedia represents “publicly negotiated knowledge” as opposed to the private (elite) construction of knowledge by mass media instiutions and traditional publishers.

There is a dramatic change building: the ability of institutions to impose authority through carefully-constructed representations is dissipating, soon to disappear entirely. Peter Morville noted in the Q&A that large corporate and government sites often seek to express authority through IA. But next-generation IA is radically decentralized, incorporating many points of view expressed through blogs, del.icio.us tags, and so forth, thereby pushing authority to the edge of the network. As a result, IA’s need to expand their scope to consider the broad, socio-cultural impact of their design work.

As Weinberger noted, Dewey thought he was doing God’s work through classification, representing one true view of the world. The current landscape of IA, on the other hand, is distinctly postmodern, recognizing many socially-structured views. Despite many efforts to make IA into a postivist, quantified science, it appears the future may be resoutely interpretivist–understanding how the organization and representation of information intertwines with culture.