de Stricker

Information vs. Meaning: Mining the information in public sources

British publisher Infonortics' recently released Stephen E. Arnold opus, Google Version 2.0:  The Calculating Predator, is a shining example how information becomes meaningful when an analytical mind goes about linking individual, discrete items for potential predictive value.  In the thorough and extensive report (see www.arnoldit.com and www.infonortics.com), Stephen points to the content of patents held (under unassuming titles as is common with patents) by Google employees, their technical papers posted on the net, and their prior work history, making the case that Google is "interested" in certain kinds of technology and applications going way beyond search and advertising.  The suggestion is that before long, our lives will be Googlified through and through, Google having a leading role in many of the tools and functions we take for granted in day to day activities.

Stephen invested 2 years of digging and analysis to create the report - which seems quick, given the sheer weight of detail and knowledge he serves up. His pursuit of dots to connect, coupled with his unique expertise in esoteric computational technology, has yielded a fascinating glimpse into the directions Google might go in its next ventures ... amounting to a reminder that appearance can indeed mislead. As Stephen notes, he can't prove that his conclusions are correct - but the evidence he brings is sure compelling that Google is much more than a funky search company.  We shall see, in due course.

The opus would make superb required reading in Business and Competitive Intelligence courses under the topic of mining the gold in public information sources.  (As for the fact that deep expertise may be required to make sense of what is mined ... that is of course another matter!)

Do people in fact prefer to get information from a trusted person rather than from a database?

During a discussion about "information habits" I recently heard a comment that in some organizational cultures, obtaining information from a trusted colleague is preferred over obtaining it from an impersonal source - regardless how authoritative that impersonal source may be.  Reflecting on the popularity of story telling as a topic at conferences, I considered the comfort there is in hearing information from someone we consider to be an expert and someone we know would not go with less than solid information:  "If Anna relies on that number, so can I". What is the implication for information professionals?

Hearing information live from a trusted colleague offers the opportunity to ask questions or probe for more detail - something we can't do in front of a list of search results.  Moreover, when we don't personally know the reputations of authors of particular items ... how can we avoid the experience of pointing to a document only to be told by a subject matter expert, "that author is known to hold some unusual views"?

Of course, there's the experiential factor.  Sure, in preparing for the upcoming conference in London, I could have found out on the relevant website about the tube's recent innovation, the refillable Oyster card ... it was a lot faster and more enjoyable to hear it straight from my niece, complete with her own personal tips.  It is understandable that knowledge workers seek each other out.

The trick for those who work in supplying information to knowledge workers is to work both avenues.  If the right information lands on the right desks at the right time ... we may hope the owners will eventually talk to each other.  But it is essential that we act as 'people connectors', linking one person with another who can take the role of trusted colleague.  In both ways, we will then be part of the 'oral culture' in a manner consistent with our professional practice.