About Lab>>2>>Lab

HONF 2010!
Lab>>2>>lab version 0.1- 16 upload series
Social Chaos >>Data >>Information Technology >> Knowledge >> Wisdom

Lab>>2>>lab is a research platform created by HONF.

Lab>>2>>Lab Pandemic Areas

- Rationale
Digital media may be “new”, but it is obvious that many of the key issues surrounding the adoption of “new media” are issues inherited from the “old”, “traditional” media. One of the more crucial socio political issues is that of representation: who does the new media represent and how are they represented? This, in turn, is related to the wider issue of relationships between and within states, the market and societies.
The debate over technology and access mirror ongoing debates about literacy and power: speaking for people who would otherwise not be able to speak for themselves. Unlike conventional media (except for talkback radio and “Letters to the editor”), the Internet can allow smaller groups to have a public voice. Once again, however, issues of access, technology and language arise.

Does technology change society?
If people believe that a technology can change society, they are said to believe in “technological determinism”. Essentially, this perspective argues that technology is stronger than society and we cannot help the ways in which we create and use technology. In this situation, according to technological determinists, we have no choice. The features of the technology determine its use, and the role of a progressive society is to adapt to (and benefit from) technological change. The opposite way of looking at technology is called “social determinism”. This suggests that the society’s concerns are responsible for the development and deployment of technology. The way that a technology is used in any given social or cultural context, argue social determinists, is a reflection of that society or culture. Thus, if the use of a technology is distorted because it is in the hands of corporations that want only to make a profit, then that aim is evident in the costs and patterns of use. Take Microsoft software as an example. Indonesian computer users, feeling ripped off by Microsoft and yet uncomfortable using pirated software, became extensive adopters of Linux open source software. In this case, Microsoft software might be construed as socially determined to communicate the priorities of global capital and international shareholders, while open source Linux, instead, embodies community access and local (national)-level accountability.
For some people, their access to, and experience with, technology can change their perceptions of society – hopefully increasing their sense of community and inclusion. So do we accept technological determinism or social determinism? Technology cannot change society by itself: it only makes sense in terms of human knowledge and activity; and once these are brought into the equation, then the issue is certainly not technological.
The Internet has been heralded as a potentially liberating and democratic technology, but such benefits can only be realised when the people have access to the technology as well as the skills and resources to use it. It is possible to democratise technological development and choice. It is also possible to make a technology reflect the lives and the priorities of the users, and of their culture. From the screen saver that comes up when the computer is switched on to the URLs stored in the computer’s memory, each individual machine can be customised to reflect the interests and priorities of the individual or household that uses it. If the individual or household is confident that their own choices are good, then they can be confident that the technology they use will reflect this.
The classic definition of “information theory” of information technology ias used by Stonier (1990) claims: “Information exists. It does not need to be perceived to exist. It requires no intelligence to interpret it. It does not have to have meaning to exist. It exists” (p. 21). For those who prefer a semantic approach based upon information being meaningful, this classical definition does not describe information, but data. Both perspectives can be represented on a chaos–wisdom continuum:
Social Chaos >>Data >>Information Technology >> Knowledge >> Wisdom

The progression on this continuum starts in social chaos, where there is no discernible pattern or organization and where bits of information are fragmented, unable to be readily processed by human or machine. Data occurs when the symbols have been processed in such a way that they conform to the requirements of a transmission channel, such as a modem. Data is a quantity rather than a quality. Information technology, on the other hand, refers to data organized into meaningful chunks. Specifically, chunks that have meaning to humans rather than machine applications. Information becomes knowledge when it has been successfully communicated to and understood by the now more knowledgeable recipient. Knowledge is the product of information plus thought and ideas. It implies a value judgment because knowledge marks the processing by a human of useful and relevant information. Wisdom is the final stage on the continuum. Here there are two sets of value judgments: the first in terms of the transition from information to knowledge, the second in terms of knowledge being used in the making of sound judgments.

-Irene A. HONF 2010-