Social Media Midterm: Question 2

In Wikipedia: The Truth in Numbers the message seems to be: no longer do the victors write the history books, we do: you, me, and everyone else. How is social media (twitter, blogs) forwarding this idea? What gives someone authority to "write history" and why should we listen to them? Is there a hierarchy of authorities? ie. is what someone like Seth Godin says more important? What should be taken as canon?

Wikipedia is a strong example of how social media has redefined how history is recorded. Thousands of people come together to generate a shared version of what they believe has happened. Social media forwards this idea by providing several ways to communicate opinions of history. For example, youtube provides a visual history of happenings, where as facebook can provide photos and dialogue. The Internet provides everyone with the authority to write their version of history. But authority does not mean legitimacy.

Information becomes history as soon as it passes, so who is telling us the news is defining history. We use social media to stay up to date on what’s happening and to communicate what has happened. People prove their legitimacy by providing reliable information and popularity. For example, people trust Perez Hilton to tell them celebrity gossip, although his persona and popularity was largely built from his blog. Legitimacy is found by building online relationships and followings. There is truth in numbers. Social media is history. Like story telling, people gain insight through communication of the past, present and future. We should listen, because that is how history has always been built, except now we do not leave it to just the academic to write. As we enter an age where social media is a major tool of communication, history like most things is subject to review.

However in terms of the victor’s view of history, social media is not providing an unbiased version of history, as it is still geographically stratified. Poor people in third world areas probably do not get their say in history. Although history is collectively collected with the use of Wikipedia, it is not the whole truth as language barriers and poverty continue to leave people out of history. I wonder if history translated from language to language changes in meaning?

Who are the people without history?