MaisonBisson.com notes:
“The TV studio audience of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire guesses correctly 91 percent of the time, compared to “experts” who guess only 65 percent correctly.”
This is apparently from, The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations by James Surowiecki (New York: Doubleday, 2004). I’ve been meaning to read it for so long. I’ll have to pick it up at the airport this week.
Hmmm.
Are librarians experts? Do we fail to see the right path or know the correct information too often? I doubt that’s the right interpretation. We can be a crowd too! Between social networks, collaboration spaces and blogs and discussion lists (remember them?), we should be able to think through anything and adapt and invent new modalities as the world shifts. It might also help if we asked questions outside our own comfortable circles more often.
Stephen
Please Take My Latest Survey
Are you a technophile or a technophobe?
Click here to take a quick 3-question survey.
Thank you!
Recent Comments
- Diane K. Kovacs on Cloud Jargon Unwound: Distinguishing Saas, IaaS and PaaS [Infographic]
- Wei Neudorf on How Can I Survive a Job that Makes Me Use Outdated Technology?
- Bryce Rudder on How Can I Survive a Job that Makes Me Use Outdated Technology?
- Tony Bottrell on How Can I Survive a Job that Makes Me Use Outdated Technology?
- Carolyn Mahin on How Can I Survive a Job that Makes Me Use Outdated Technology?
Categories
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
The Millionaire audience is accurate not because of guessing but because a reasonable percentage (say 25%) know the answer, and the other 75% are randomly distributed across the available answer. Who remembers their stats classes? If we accept my guess that 25% know the answer, how frequently would they be out voted by a chance distribution of the other 75%?
Thanks for your reply to my much-earlier Google question.
Since getting my feet wet in the professional world of librarians, I have often been taken aback at the stagnation that seems so prevalent in our profession. We should definately be not only venturing beyond our comfort circles, but shattering those percieved boundaries. We are a profession of multi-disciplinarians, and yet we still produce over-abundance of “research” based on reference desk usage, and book placements, etc…
I have never been an advocate of throwing out the dreaded L-word, I personally find the term “Informatist” distasteful. It stinks of shame. But we definately need to educate on what it means to be a librarian, more than that, we need to reclaim our profession from IT specialists, taxonomists, and metadata experts.
We can/should do so much more…