Dadamac response to - Measuring the Unmeasurable (Internet) and Why It Matters « Gurstein's Community Informatics September 25, 2011
I particularly like the bit where he said :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those things that are not measured are not given “value”—either in formal and official terms as well as in more subtle and informal ways—they are not seen as having worth, at least when compared with those things that are being measured such as for profit software packages and services. Thus the millions upon millions of hours contributed by the technically proficient, those motivated by the driving force of intellectual curiousity and those simply with a motivation to contribute to public well-being through contributing to the development of the Internet are not assessed as “having value”. What should be seen as a triumph of civil society and of freely associated communities both physical and virtual – the building and maintenance of large parts of the infrastructure and operating elements of the Internet and many of its most significant and enduring outputs are devalued as compared to the activities of those whose motivation is for example, pure self-interest or even greed.
More at http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/measuring-the-unmeasurable-internet-...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All of the post (not just that quote above) finds echoes in my own thinking about the "invisibility" of the "true information revolution", and the existence of two parallel systems - with the new one under-recognised by the one presently in power.
It seems to me very similar to the power shift around the industrial revolution. I'm no historian, but this is what I understand (as much from novels of the time as from history books). Thank to the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism, people began to have power because they had wealth measured in money. Previously power was in the hands of people who had wealth measured in land, and whose place was recognisable by titles like Prince, Duke, Earl and so on.
At first the aristocracy were very dismissive of people who were the new rich - people who had "money but no breeding", no historic rank and no place in society, no land. Gradually things changed. The story of the aristocrat with land but no money who married the heiress to save the estate became the stuff of romantic fiction and of real life.
Now when we talk about "rich and powerful" our first thought is more likely to be about people with money rather than people with titles. Financial wealth is valued.
Meanwhile, as Mike discusses, there is a different kind of value being generated, something that doesn't fit into the measurements and value systems of the money-focussed people. A new kind of wealth is building and, arguably, it may also become the new seat of power.