• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

The Time Magazine Person of the Year is not Me

kerouacdude

TRIBE Member
Person of the Year: You


[TIME.comexternal link] -- The "Great Man" theory of history is usually attributed to the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle, who wrote that "the history of the world is but the biography of great men." He believed that it is the few, the powerful and the famous who shape our collective destiny as a species. That theory took a serious beating this year.

To be sure, there are individuals we could blame for the many painful and disturbing things that happened in 2006. The conflict in Iraq only got bloodier and more entrenched. A vicious skirmish erupted between Israel and Lebanon. A war dragged on in Sudan. A tin-pot dictator in North Korea got the Bomb, and the President of Iran wants to go nuclear too. Meanwhile nobody fixed global warming, and Sony didn't make enough PlayStation3s.

But look at 2006 through a different lens and you'll see another story, one that isn't about conflict or great men. It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.

The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia) as a way for scientists to share research. It's not even the overhyped dotcom Web of the late 1990s. The new Web is a very different thing. It's a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it's really a revolution.

And we are so ready for it. We're ready to balance our diet of predigested news with raw feeds from Baghdad and Boston and Beijing. You can learn more about how Americans live just by looking at the backgrounds of YouTube videos those rumpled bedrooms and toy-strewn basement rec rooms than you could from 1,000 hours of network television.

And we didn't just watch, we also worked. Like crazy. We made Facebook profiles and Second Life avatars and reviewed books at Amazon and recorded podcasts. We blogged about our candidates losing and wrote songs about getting dumped. We camcordered bombing runs and built open-source software.

America loves its solitary geniuses its Einsteins, its Edisons, its Jobses but those lonely dreamers may have to learn to play with others. Car companies are running open design contests. Reuters is carrying blog postings alongside its regular news feed. Microsoft is working overtime to fend off user-created Linux. We're looking at an explosion of productivity and innovation, and it's just getting started, as millions of minds that would otherwise have drowned in obscurity get backhauled into the global intellectual economy.

Who are these people? Seriously, who actually sits down after a long day at work and says, I'm not going to watch Lost tonight. I'm going to turn on my computer and make a movie starring my pet iguana? I'm going to mash up 50 Cent's vocals with Queen's instrumentals? I'm going to blog about my state of mind or the state of the nation or the steak-frites at the new bistro down the street? Who has that time and that energy and that passion?

The answer is, you do. And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME's Person of the Year for 2006 is you.

Sure, it's a mistake to romanticize all this any more than is strictly necessary. Web 2.0 harnesses the stupidity of crowds as well as its wisdom. Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred.

But that's what makes all this interesting. Web 2.0 is a massive social experiment, and like any experiment worth trying, it could fail. There's no road map for how an organism that's not a bacterium lives and works together on this planet in numbers in excess of 6 billion. But 2006 gave us some ideas. This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person. It's a chance for people to look at a computer screen and really, genuinely wonder who's out there looking back at them. Go on. Tell us you're not just a little bit curious.

Copyright © 2006 Time Inc.
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
I think a writer went on a bender and missed the deadline, so some poor fuck had to pound that out overnight.
 

Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
this is what a million monkeys sitting at a million typewriters came up with last week. considering they don't know the language nor how to type, it's quite an accomplishment.
 

gsnuff

TRIBE Promoter
meh.. better you (or was it me?) then "The American Soldier." I'll take social networking hacks anyday over GI's.
 

octo

TRIBE Member
kerouacdude said:
The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia)
TIME Magazine uses wikipedia as a reference? ch33se
 

Klubmasta Will

TRIBE Member
Bumbaclat said:
a longer article would have made that more interesting.. but interesting anyway.
that's just the introductory article. there are a number of related articles that expand on the theme.

octo said:
TIME Magazine uses wikipedia as a reference? ch33se
the article is about the rise of community-built sites like wikipedia, youtube and myspace, so its reference to wikipedia is fitting.
 

Klubmasta Will

TRIBE Member
there's also a list of the 'people who mattered' in 2006, which lists the people that i guess are the runner's up this year.

i took a skim and will probably read it later.
 

kerouacdude

TRIBE Member
^^^
yeah, in the initial post I failed to mention it was grabbed from CNN, though i don't know if they wrote it or it was a blurb produced for them written by Time.
 

technowelt

TRIBE Member
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to award the title to the people responsible for inventing and creating youtube, wikipedia, etc?
 

basketballjones

TRIBE Member
no, because they arent the ones who made them what they are, ppl like you did, so take credit for it while you can, dont forget to thank god
 

gsnuff

TRIBE Promoter
technowelt said:
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to award the title to the people responsible for inventing and creating youtube, wikipedia, etc?
You're missing the point.
 

Sassy

TRIBE Member
I actually think it’s an interesting idea and not so far fetched. I do agree a longer and more in depth and explanatory article would have made for a better read, and might have been a little more thought provoking. Yet, there has been a great technological communication explosion over the last couple of years created and fed and by people like us. We do live in a camcorder society, one where people are producing their own media for various reasons - self expression, entertainment, being frustrated and jaded by old school media (both technique and thought). Blogging has become a huge phenomenon that is likely here to stay and in some circumstances has replaced and exposed ‘old media’s' archaic structure and production. It has enabled people with out any journalist background (this is both a good/bad thing) to express their thoughts to thousands of people and influence others especially in the political realm.

I could probably write a long diatribe about my thoughts on this subject. I am actually considering doing my PhD on a similar topic (technology and communication in the electric or digital age).
 
Top