Decision Making as Output and Bounded Rationality

  The classical economics theories proceed on the assumption of rational agents. Rationality implies the economic agents undertake actions or exercise choices based on the cost-benefit analysis they undertake. The assumption further posits that there exists no information asymmetry and thus the agent is aware of all the costs and benefits associated with the choice he or she has exercised. The behavioral school contested the decision stating the decisions in practice are often irrational. Implied there is a continuous departure from rationality. Rationality in the views of the behavioral school is more an exception to the norm rather a rule. The past posts have discussed the limitations of this view by the behavioral school. Economics has often posited rationality in the context in which the choices are exercised rather than theoretical abstract view of rational action. Rational action in theory seems to be grounded in zero restraint situation yet in practice, there are numerous restra

Wiki'nomics', Narrative Contestations and Indic Ecosystem


Wikipedia monopolizes the online encyclopedia segment for all practical purposes. To an individual, the first link from Google Search results invariably points towards a Wikipedia entry. Given its usual spot in the top 10 Google search results, Wikipedia usually occupies a top of mind recall for many people. Their first source of knowledge ingraining is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not merely a crowd-sourced encyclopedia but has emerged as authoritative repository of knowledge.

With passage of time, Wikipedia is expanding into non English languages too. Even in the context of Indic languages, Wikipedia might emerge as leading information production and dissemination contrary to expectations. Implied is the current and the future generation at least in the immediate future would get their information from Wikipedia. Therefore information as existing on Wikipedia in all likelihood will be treated as truth and even more so as it spreads in the regional languages. Despite no apparent centralized control and entries being susceptible to editing and misuse, Wikipedia has little competition the information production, dissemination and knowledge repository space.

A reluctance towards embracing Wiki is perceptible in the right wing yet without a similar embrace of Twitter it would not perhaps been possible to capture the Hindu political mind-space. The article “Battle for Indic Thoughts: Are Text Books Irrelevant in the Digital Age” discusses the same in the context of building encyclopedia and repository for Indic knowledge.  It is apparent RW enthusiasm towards Wiki is very weak and there is visibly a marked preference towards the traditional text tools. Yet Wikipedia goes beyond text books and becomes a primary source material for reference for even current events too. A recent entry on Delhi Riots seem to pinpoint Kapil Mishra as primary culprit and almost absolve the Amanullah Khan, Tahir Hussain and others.  In an interesting report, Wikipedia editors apparently deleted references that attributed the Muslim role in the Delhi riots. The report by Jonita Singh at Wink Report is available here.  The report is also available on Jihad Watch here.  This seems nothing unusual. As Jihad Watch points out here, Wikipedia has been reluctant for perhaps many reasons to attribute terror attacks to Islamist groups. This brings itself new challenges as the control over the narrative shifts to Wikipedia which given its editorial slant would present a one-sided picture more often than not.

There is a widespread feeling, Wikipedia has an ostensible leftist predisposition on topics especially on India. To a substantial extent, Left intelligentsia and their ecosystem embraced Wiki very early thus developing a first mover advantage in content building. Jimmy Wales too was ideologically left despite his forays into the pornography space in pre-Wikipedia days. Further, to the left, a commune ownership of Wiki with no visible vertical hierarchy resembled the most protuberant manifestation of Marxian elixir of proleteriatarian ownership. The roles and privileges of the editors was more seemingly aligned to that Marxian paradigm of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.  Shunning profits, surviving on donations all made Wikipedia lucrative for leftist capture. This was where the right wing conservative thought system faltered. They fail to recognize the potential of the emergent system and thus ceded space to their so-called progressive or liberal rivals. In India, the failure to recognize and the reluctance to embrace was even starker. Long used to the top down ‘mai-baap’ system the ability to shape societal and historical narratives through a new medium was lost. Yet given the underdeveloped and often superficial content in many instances offer abundant latitude for deeper dissection of topics related to the Indian socio-cultural-historical milieu exists. The right wing lost that valuable opportunity. Now the cows are coming home to roost.

Often, perception matters irrespective of the truth. Often narratives determine the path of nationhood and Indian right wing think-tank loses these opportunities to capture mind spaces of people not merely in India but across the globe. An adverse Wiki entry in all probability will create a distorted picture to the rest of the world which becomes difficult to counter. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, as the ‘Colour’ revolutions swept North Africa and the Middle East, reporting platform like Global Voices played a major role. Global Voices was merely a platform for reporting facts and narratives from all corners of the globe. There apparently would be no opinion just a mere report. The report would be filed by volunteers located in these regions. In many cases, the local citizens filed those reports thus facilitating the spread of information in the revolution. The Indian counterpart in the right wing ecosystem let go of the opportunity allowing the same to be captured by the apparent left wingers. This makes difficult for genuine causes to be highlighted and reported across the world.

Many RW publications depend on top-down approaches. Despite some sterling and brave reporting, there are limits to which an individual can cover.  Yet almost zero progress was achieved in creating and sustaining a reporting platform a la Global Voices. In West Bengal for instance, there are reports of violence against Hindus with the state turning a blind eye. Barring few Twitter posts, there is very little emerging from ground zero. Similarly, a platform like Global Voices could have generated a manifold response in the riots that shook North East Delhi. In the communal tensions engulfing Western UP, live simultaneous ground reporting across villages would in all probability been the next stage in building the ecosystem. Twitter levelled the playing field between the dominant narrative and the grassroots narrative and the battles have shifted to Whatsapp. A dedicated reporting platform would complement and supplement the mind spaces captured on Twitter and WhatsApp. The reluctance on the RW is something disturbing and can impede long run narrative building.

Twitter and Whatsapp are good battlegrounds for reactive and expressive in narrative building. Yet the raw material for the same has to emerge at the grassroots. A reporting platform from the villages and mohallas are sine qua non. Secondly, a repository of facts has to be built up for future searches and pursuit of knowledge. A Wikipedia kind of platform is inevitable. The Hindu right wing thought system is seriously lagging in these spaces. The war on Twitter, Whatsapp or YouTube etc. might hit a ceiling and run aground if every possible channel of information storage, process and transmission are not captured.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Decision Making as Output and Bounded Rationality

The Chicken-Egg Conundrum of Economics

A Note on Supply-Demand Dynamics