Orrorin’s Diary

My blog is new and kind of obscure, or at least not mainstream. Like most bloggers I desire to be read by others and therefore met the technical requirements to achieve visibility. However, for some outlandish reason I do not feel compelled to use Big Names from the Blogosphere to boost my image. Yes, I use many links in my posts as credentials and for my own credibility; nonetheless, I do not expect a high visitor return from it. I believe interaction can yield better results and that is also what I intend to do.

Louis Gray covers the matter of blog-linking in one of his recent posts. Though an interesting post, I enjoyed reading the comments even more (some from famous bloggers in the tech environment). The Internet has evolved a lot since broadband. We saw blogs and social networks arriving, then micro-blogs, video blogs and now mobile social medias. We arrived to a shifting point where blogs became commodities forcing readers to select their sources and authors to merge or get into niches. Scobleizer is one very good example. The upcoming of 3D, decentralized virtual worlds, social and semantic search and most importantly mobile internet will force bloggers to adapt. Common blogs like this one will become obsolete in a few years time and will be handled in different ways using new technologies.

Blogs have in a certain way taken over the role of newspaper or certain aspects of it. Though they are virtual, blogs have almost the same limitations. The strength of quality papers and magazines is that they are shared. When someone buys a magazine, two to five extra people read from it. That’s how printed advertising campaigns are organized, using these statistics.

In a sense, links in blogs bring a virtualized and potentially viral support to this behavior. However, as people have only a limited amount of time, they also have to optimize their sources. With time, and with the help of aggregators, people started using filters and select based on relevance. Also many blogs (and posts) are scanned instead of fully read – the same way it is done with paper magazines. This is one of the reasons why micro-blogging is becoming quite successful, even if only with a certain category of bloggers.

Scoble also recently said that blog comments are dead and still, we find many comments on different blogs; even though I must admit, many are just trash. I suppose that the quality of the comment depends on the quality of the post and the type of readership a particular blogger has. Anyway, does a blog have a “raison d’être” without readers and to some extend interaction with them?

This tells a lot on my petty blog…

When electricity, gas and water became commodities (at least in a part of the world) they integrated into our daily habits. Taking long showers and keeping the television lit for hours was normal. Today however, with soaring prices, we start changing those same habits – adapting to the new environment. With all the social medias we have access to, we also have the need to adapt, but in this case it takes more time and understanding – information is indeed volatile. If blog links seem to be declining it is because they also have become part of a wholly commoditized structure. They might wane, but will almost instantaneously be replaced by other linking means, which might be less relevant or just seem less relevant. Say welcome to Google Lively, Vivaty and the others.

Yes it is a matter of time before blogs will falter and be stored in archives. They will however reappear fortified out of this experience and found in a new and more evolutive appearance!

I just hope someone will think about creating an online archive or library for all the actual blogs. It would be a shame for humanity to lose this cultural aspect of our society and for some cases important ideas and thoughts…  

I would like to continue with my post related to expertise. My question was then how we could define expertise and starting when, can we call someone an expert. I have been pondering on the matter and while looking for other people’s opinion and “expertise”, I found an interesting paper written by Bruce D. Weinstein.

Bruce, also known as The Ethics Guy, is a Ph.D., a professional ethicist and author of several books. In his paper “What is an expert”, he tries to define expertise and uses examples to show when we could consider someone being an expert. The most important aspect of his paper is that he argues there are two kinds of experts: those whose expertise is a function of what they know (epistemic expertise), or what they do (performative expertise).

A strong belief of mine is that the issue comes from the fact words like expert and professional have too many meanings and are not well defined. This means, we need a word defining someone with strong knowledge on a particular subject and another word for a person skilled in this particular matter.

A teacher in biology can be an expert in biology as a whole (making him a real master), or an expert in a particular field in biology like cell biology. Yet, this doesn’t make him a good pedagogue. Yes this person is a biology expert, but no, it is no teaching expert. Is he then a professional teacher? Technically yes, because it is his main or secondary career path and he is receiving pay. But is he a competent one…probably not.

After some thought, I believe we should redefine the three following words: expert, professional and practitioner.

Here are my definitions:

Expert: one who is recognized as a highly reliable source of knowledge on a particular matter or subject, capable of providing strong justifications and having the faculty to support significant research or decision-making processes.

Professional: one who is recognized as highly proficient in a particular field according to the rules of the practice and capable to share his know-how.

Practitioner: one who practices a profession and receives pay for it.

Both experts and professionals have to be recognized as such in order to be distinguished from the laypersons. This status does not depend on the amount of people recognizing it, but rather by the level of proficiency of the jury or a combination of both.

One can also be expert and professional at the same time for the same knowledge/skill (in this case we might look for a new word). The word expertise should be used indifferently for both expert and professional as it defines their level of proficiency/knowledge. As expertise in a subject requires time and dedication instead of sheer talent, we can consider that a professional’s expertise comes from his main career path and not just a hobby used for passing time. Though for some people hobbies tend to become more valuable than their actual job.

Now that we have definitions to work with, let us have a look further.

Bruce introduced the idea of skill levels in his paper; a bit the same way as it is done in Role Playing Games (RPG). Some of those games use well thought and developed profiling models with defined skill levels to which names are given. One of them would be Vampire the Masquerade/Requiem. This game revolving around vampires introduced a model with very interesting while simple aspects.

Every aspect of the played character is defined by dots; the same way people use stars today to rate a product or service. In the game, a normal human cannot have more than five dots, while superhuman vampires can go further. Those dots have the following names:

 @                        Novice
 @@                     Practiced
 @@@                 Competent
 @@@@              Expert
 @@@@@          Master

First interesting element is that the human average is placed at two dots and expertise at four. This means a practitioner has usually a level of two or three dots. Characters mainly gain extra dots with experience which can be acquired by practicing a particular skill or learning about it. Each game model has its own and unique way to develop a played character.

A second appealing aspect is that a skill is always combined with an attribute like intelligence, strength or dexterity. This means that someone with four dots in karate, who is very bright but not agile, might have a lot of knowledge about martial arts, but will not necessarily be able to beat a 3 dots karate-ka who is faster and stronger. 

The third and last attention-grabbing aspect is the fact that a player can try almost any type of skill but will have its difficulty raised. Whereas physical and social skills have a small rise in difficulty, mental skills are much tougher to manage. This makes sense as kicking is easier than doing CPR without proper knowledge.

Hereunder the latest character sheet of the game:

Let’s have a look back at our teacher. He can be an expert in biology, maybe also through research a professional in this field. On the other hand, he will be considered as a practitioner as a teacher.
This might give him for example 4 dots in biology and 2 in teaching. We could even divide biology into theory and practice, where he gets 4 dots as expert and 3 as professional.

So, where does all of this bring us?

While definitions make our life easier, we still have to find out when someone can be called an expert or professional. Criteria’s have to be chosen and a competent jury assembled in order to assess the expert/professional. Coming back to our web2.0 environment, it wouldn’t be that crazy to use feedbacks and ratings to assess the proficiency level of experts and professionals.

Part of the assessment could be done by the public and some by other specialists. A possibility would be to introduce a grading system like used today for the Eurovision. Experts will be graded on their studies, papers, research and decisions, while professionals will be graded on their production/construction, efficiency, artistic or physical achievement, etc.

Such a system might help us categorize practitioners and improve the status of people who deserve it. On the other hand, if not well managed, it can also yield a lot of discontents.

This however, is another story for another post.