Fusion ECM

Bex Huff recently wrote HERE in defense of the information broker. Bex correctly identifies the historical problems of the information broker (i.e. that "expert" who decided what you meant when you asked for something and decided what information should be fed to you). He also correctly identifies the challenges surrounding completely freeing all the information (i.e. infoglut, difficulty in finding relevant information).

The problem is that Bex proposes keeping the silos and the brokers and using technology to empower them. As I understand it, this means freeing the information only for the experts and then trusting them to tell you what is relevant to you.

I disagree.

There are a number of problems with Bex's defense of the broker. The first is that he conflates the IS with OUGHT. Bex points out (especially in the comments) that we have defacto information brokers in the form of only a few who actually admin DIGG or Reddit links, or only a few who actually edit Wikipedia entries, or only a few who blog for a corporation. These few are acting as information brokers telling us what is cool (DIGG etc) or what is important (Wikipedia and Bloggers). The fact that this IS the case does not mean that it OUGHT to be the case. If I read into Bex's argument it appears that the same thing could be said of the Dinosaur mass media. Give them better access to facts and information and let them tell us what's important. The problem, though, is twofold.

1) facts and information are proliferating precisely because the technology is democratizing the production of and access to information. Blogs and citizen media have played no small role in pulling down Dinosaur media who are even now hemorrhaging money and staff. Yet they were our information brokers.

2) The democratizing nature of the technology means that while information is available to all/most and the means to find and produce information is equally available, there will be a natural aggregation of consumers to sources with the most "relevance" to those audience segments. This is what is happening today with the emerging "information oligarchy" Bex alludes to in his comments. However, the ubiquitous availability of participation and production means should not be removed in favor of giving up that capability to a state/company/industry specified information broker.

Bex also underscores the advantages of a well-meaning, well-connected, highly responsive information broker (if one ever existed). The main advantage he restates several ways is that such a broker provides you with relevant information. However, what is missed here is that relevancy is always in the mind and mash-up of the user. The information broker is always at least two steps removed from knowing what you want. Step one is your ability to formulate a proper question. If you ask it wrong or not specifically enough the information broker goes down rabbit holes you're not interested in. Step two is the broker's ability to understand your context even if s/he can understand your query. Because context matters so much in not only understanding questions but in applying answers, the farther removed the broker is from your context, the less s/he is able to provide you with relevant information. This then means that the closer the broker is to you, the better s/he will be in getting you the information you desire as well as understanding the questions you ask.

Obviously, the ideal solution if for YOU to be your own information broker, with all the access to information (yes even infoglut) that you could need, and to enable YOU with the technology and skill to wade through that tsunami of information to find the cup of potable information you desire.

Oh yeah, you should also be enabled to forgo that opportunity and rely on someone else. But then you are beholden to them. That might be OK for expediency but it should NEVER be the basis for giving up the opportunities that opening up the information and production technology have provided.