Skip to content

How has information changed?

Dave Warlick states information has changed, resulting in a good bit of discussion. Downes suggests what has really changed is our understanding of information. I’m of the mind that information may not have changed at its core, but the context in which it exists and its characteristics (speed of development, digital, capacity to share) have changed. But, as Stephen indicates, our changed understanding, and thereby how we related to it, does not mean a core change in information.

2 Comments

  1. Virginia Yonkers wrote:

    But how do you define information? Like the tree in the forest question, is it information if it is not useful or I can’t use it? I think there has always been information. Coke had a lot of “information” about its brand when it decided to change its formula in the 1980′s. However, “intuitive” information was ignored. It was not considered “information”. Is intuition information or a form of “knowledge” which ignores some information in place of others?

    Friday, June 15, 2007 at 1:28 pm | Permalink
  2. Mrs Durff wrote:

    I would have to agree with Mr. Downes that the essential characteristics of knowledge have not changed. How we perceive that knowledge has changed. Along with our changing, evolving perception, is the manner in which we consume, collect, & catalogue that knowledge.
    We do, as Mr. Warlick implies, consume that knowledge more quickly, we collect it much more quickly (as in RSS aggregators), & we catalogue (as in del.icio.us accounts) more quickly. All of these are marks of the shifting paradigm. The essence of the underlying knowledge base has not itself changed.

    Friday, June 15, 2007 at 11:51 pm | Permalink