Steve Brantley's Profile

Social epistemology is the study of the social dimensions of knowledge
or information. There is little consensus, however, on what the term
"knowledge" comprehends, what is the scope of the "social", or what
the style or purpose of the study should be. According to some
writers, social epistemology should retain the same general mission as
classical epistemology, revamped in the recognition that classical
epistemology was too individualistic. According to other writers,
social epistemology should be a more radical departure from classical
epistemology, a successor discipline that would replace epistemology
as traditionally conceived. The classical approach could be realized
in at least two forms. One would emphasize the traditional epistemic
goal of acquiring true beliefs. It would study social practices in
terms of their impact on the truth-values of agents' beliefs. A second
version of the classical approach would focus on the epistemic goal of
having justified or rational beliefs. Applied to the social realm, it
might concentrate, for example, on when a cognitive agent is justified
or warranted in accepting the statements and opinions of others.
Proponents of the anti-classical approach have little or no use for
concepts like truth and justification. In addressing the social
dimensions of knowledge, they understand "knowledge" as simply what is
believed, or what beliefs are "institutionalized" in this or that
community, culture, or context. They seek to identify the social
forces and influences responsible for knowledge production so
conceived. Social epistemology is theoretically significant because
of the central role of society in the knowledge-forming process. It
also has practical importance because of its possible role in the
redesign of information-related social institutions.

Fame and fortune! In 2008, five UIC students won the $1,000 Grand Prize in the Sparky Awards, a video contest to promote the value of sharing information.

One reason Google was adopted so quickly when it came along is
that Google understood there is no shelf, and that there is no file
system. Google can decide what goes with what after hearing from the user, rather than trying to predict in
advance what it is you need to know.

Browse versus search is a radical increase in the trust we put in link infrastructure, and in the degree of power derived from that link structure. Browse says the people making the ontology, the people doing the categorization, have the responsibility to organize the world in advance. Given this requirement, the views of the catalogers necessarily override the user's needs and the user's view of the world. If you want something that hasn't been categorized in the way you think about it, you're out of luck.