Content produsage in the online community today, enables everyone, both experts and folks to make contribution (More detail explanation in the post of Produsage Rising Above). However, are “folks” considered less knowledgeable in particular fields than “experts”? Can folks provide the equal qualified information as experts? If they are, are these bottom-up and top-down approaches able to co-exist?
Experts play an important role of providing core and fundamental knowledge, as well as being the curators of knowledge by pointing out the interrelations between different fields of knowledge. However, they are unable to have comprehensive experts on areas of knowledge remote from their core field (Bruns 2008, 214). In the act of produsage, folks on the other hand provide a different level of expertise in the health community; they are able to provide personal experience from their health problems.
The following are examples of different approaches in knowledge and information contribution:
Experts
A Healthy and Active Australia is a government based site that provides a range of information and initiatives on healthy eating, regular physical activity and overweight and obesity. This reputable site provides only the knowledge of experts, and folk knowledge is not.
Folky Experts
On the other hand, The Health Blogger, a site that runs by a nutrition enthusiast who’s a personal trainer. Even though this blogger/produser is not a health professional, his site is ranked number 9 in Top Health Sites. He acts as “folky experts”, contributing his knowledge in a way that experts are unable to provide. This proves that the knowledge of a folk is just as valued as the knowledge of an expert.
Experts & Folks
Mediapedia is a site that allows sharing and advancement of medical knowledge in relation to health by applying the new collaborate model. This model provides a free online platform for both health professionals (experts) and general public (amateurs) to contribute unlimitedly. In this combination of experts and folks, producers and produsers, they have “harness the benefits of both” in this bundle of knowledge and information in the health community (Bruns 2008, 220). It has truly bridge the division of the knowledge of experts and folks that they contribute, and balances the contribution from both sides in this produsage environment.
“Each of us knows something that others do not: specific, peculiar and unquestionably important – to someone. One man’s trivia is another’s vital fact… build up our own little calls of knowledge, individually, yet in unconscious concert with millions of others who have the same desire to share what they know.”
In this community-led online environment we have today, contribution from folks / amateurs are just as important as the contribution of experts/ professionals. “Experts” still has their place in the traditional core information contributing while co-existing with “folks” who have definitely enhanced the health community by providing a different aspect of health knowledge. We should all appreciate the diverse content collection of information and knowledge we have today through the workings of collective intelligence in the field of health.
Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond From Production to Produsage. The key characteristics of produsage, P. Lang, 199-222. New York (accessed 14 May 2009).
Bruns, A. 2008. Beyond the Pro/Am Schism: Opportunities for Collaboration between Professional and Citizen Journalists under a Produsage Framework. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/beyond-the-proam-schism-opportunities-for-collaboration-between-professional-and-citizen-journalists-under-a-produsage-framework (accessed 14 May 2009).
Crystal, what an insightful post!
I agree with you – there is no reason why experts and amateurs can’t coexist peacefully in the online world. You make a very good point that, if anything, the presence of amateurs only adds to our depth and breadth of knowledge. As a supporter of folk participation (take a look at my blog – http://aetucker.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/experts-vs-amatuers/), it was uplifting to learn that The Health Blogger is the number nine Top Health Site; the very fact that the greater population is embracing folk knowledge is proof that it does add value to our knowledge bank. Such success may be illustrative of a point raised by Bruns (whom you quote in your blog) that experts’ status, as measured in the external hierarchy, may not to translate to the online world; they may be required to establish a separate reputation and status in the online world, earning their stripes (so to speak) by the quality of the content they provide, and not via the letters after their name (that is, via the internal meritocracy). In the health industry, do you believe online consumers are still placing stock in qualifications? I would certainly like to think so – surely expert health and medical knowledge is too significant to ignore?
Once again, great post Crystal – a perfect illustration of the value of folk knowledge!
thanks for the comment
I believe that patients/folks may be qualified on certain knowledge on health; however, most of this knowledge would either be based on personal experience or interest. They certainly can share and make contributions, but would consumers value the core, fundentmenal knowledge on specific topic (that is not personal experience) from an expert more or from a folk? I think consumers would rely more on the knowledge of an expert in that perspective more so than a folks!