How Do People Find The Time To Watch Television?
from the social-surplus dept
One of the most common reactions when people first learn about Wikipedia is to wonder where people find the time to write millions of articles for free. That's precisely the reaction Clay Shirky got (thanks to Luis Villa) from, ironically enough, a television producer. Shirky points out the obvious answer: people spend a lot more time watching dumb television shows than they do contributing to Wikipedia. Shirky estimates that Wikipedia represents about 100 million hours of collective effort by Wikipedia's editors. In contrast, Americans spend something like 200 billion hours watching television each year. And however pathetic people might find it that someone would spend their evenings having edit wars with people on Wikipedia, it's surely more pathetic to spend your evenings on the couch watching re-runs of Gilligan's Island. Even an online game like World of Warcraft, which many people deride as nerdy and anti-social, at least involves interacting with other people. Indeed Shirky argues, correctly in my view, that the transformation of our social lives from passive to active forms of entertainment is just beginning. People still spend a huge amount of time consuming passive media like television. If even a small fraction of that mental energy was diverted to more active pursuits, it could lead to the production of dozens of socially-beneficial efforts like Wikipedia. The problem isn't finding people with time on their hands; we've got tens of millions of those. The challenge is finding socially-beneficial projects that they'll enjoy participating in more than re-runs of Seinfeld.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: clay shirky, free time, television, wikipedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Agreed
He never seemed to grasp the fact that we spent roughly the same amount of leisure time, yet while my time was often spent either creatively or interacting with other people, he was just consuming content passively. I now work in the computer industry and don't feel that my time was ever truly wasted. His time on the other hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
heck yeah
Even if you want to be selfish and unproductive active participation is still more fun.
If youre so brain dead from work TVs exciting, your job sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
typo
You forgot the "is" after challenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No TV
It has been some time now and no regrets. It really is a 'time-sink' with no useful outcome. not that all things on the internet are useful, but the chances that you will do / create / say something useful are highly increased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warcraft
I have cut my TV time to nearly nothing simply because I find the internet's interactive entertainment to be more engaging, informative and entertaining. What's more, I can tailor my entertainment to my schedule, engage at whatever level of intensity I choose, or simply create entertainment content for myself. If I could get away with it I would probably disconnect my TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of moving
My TV is now in the corner, away from any cable inputs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The subject line summarizes my life
When I listen to people talk about keeping up with shows X, Y, and Z, my mind boggles. I can't imagine where I would find time to watch even one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Must see TV
I went from about 8 shows I "had" to watch to 2:
The Office and Lost, and I could do with out lost.
Other than that the television I tend to watch is more of the "learnin'" channels. Discovery, History, How stuff is made. Basically the same stuff I end up browsing the internet for.
It irks my wife who says she needs TV to relax. BUt 70% of the time I come in and she is watching some Home Shopping BS. And she never buys anything!
Point: Who needs broadcast TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV VS. Innertoobs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Commercials are for losers
(Though I must admit to fervently downloading a few television shows...)
On those rare occasions when I happen to see something on television at a friends place, my mind boggles at the amount of intrusive commercials people are willing to sit thru.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who watches commercials?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PVR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do it all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do it all...
As it is, I've cut out television from my life completely since I was 16.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm shocked!
Second, putting people down who do enjoy relaxing in front of the T.V. is just as bad as anyone else placing a sterotype on an Internet user.
T.V. IMHO should be the LAST thing you do, but I see how my GF truly enjoys to relax and just tune out after a long day. Myself, I have dual monitors, one for Vidcasts/Documentaries etc.. and the other for work :) so I'm all set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you kidding? Sitting on one's expanding ass, chatting with formless people via text or voice only? How about some real human contact - like in a gym, or social athletics like volleyball, or volunteering at a hospital or some useful setting - for example?
People who spend more than three hours per week on games have a serious social problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How About Expanding on the Value Judgements
"...however pathetic people might find it that someone would spend their evenings having edit wars with people on Wikipedia, it's surely more pathetic to spend your evenings on the couch watching re-runs of Gilligan's Island..."
That's just one example, which seems to be used among a list of examples to say place a value on one activity being, somehow, a more appropriate or beneficial use of time. Nobody seems to be saying why one is better than the other, and worse, nobody seems to be discussing the various elements involved in figuring that out.
I mean, how do we weigh the social value of a Wikipedia edit war against passively watching TV? Maybe the wikipedia example results in a better, more accurate record of something in our world... freely available to educate and enlighten all.
Maybe somewhere a father wants to unwind a little with Gilligan's Island, he feels his mind clear of workday troubles, and is refreshed afterwards to spend quality time with his daughter as they imagine what they'd do together on that island (I dunno, maybe she's explaining the rules of her benevolent queendom or how she'd generate electricity for personal media player). Anyway, she in turn gets a loving, supportive upbringing because her pop's in a good mood and willing to indulge her creativity--so she grows up confident to introduce her ideas to the world, which happen to be genius and solve our future energy problems.
Anyway, seems like Gilligan's Island certainly inspired Clay Shirky to introduce a theory or two. Its spread all over the Web by now.
All this aside, I don't see people teasing out any reasons for why we should even consider passive-doing against active-doing. Why should we? If you think of these in a greater context and how they interrelate, I think we may need both and I don't necessarily see a conflict between the two or a reason to assign a default value of one above the other. Certainly there are activities using the Internet or social media apps that while active aren't productive in any positive way. It'd be much better to consider things in their specific contexts before deciding on value judgements like this.
(I wrote a bit more about this last night too)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love my TV
Both have some really good, useful, content, and both have a ton of absolute crap.
The main problem with both is that the level of content (and thus the level of crap) have gone through the roof. Not 10 years ago I could search the internet and find what I was looking for easily and effectively. Now when I run a simple search I get tons of stuff that doesn't pertain to what I need, so I have to waste time weeding through the content to get what I need. The same is true with TV now. The package I have with DirecTV has around 600 channels, and I only watch about 10 of them.
Of course, getting outside and playing with my kids trumps both by a long shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever Heard of Tact?
Maybe, just maybe, people simply want to unwind after a hard day of work, or after spending time playing with their children. Maybe some of us just want to enjoy an episode of Battlestar Galactica, The Office and 30 Rock.
I understand your point, but you could have been more tactful in making it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever Heard of Tact?
As for the "more pathetic" comment, the term is relative. I'm not claiming that either Wikipedia or Gilligan's Island are pathetic activities. My claim is simply that if you are inclined to label one of them pathetic, it would be Gilligan's Island before Wikipedia. I don't think either of them are pathetic, but lots of people seem to think that Wikipedia editing is pathetic, and my argument is directed at those folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tv can be exciting-still a waste tho
let me tell u cable doesnt cut it, if u ever want to watch truly interesting (about %30 of the time as opposed to 5%) tv u have to get the Dish HD Gold package with a new DVR!
u will never get bored..
however i do agree that watching tv shows endlessly is a waste of life and tv in general is a waste...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tv can be exciting-still a waste tho
holy shit, who'd the marketing folks buy your soul from?!?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Old Guy
Embrace technology, don't fear it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I jist don't understand people
Maybe I just spend too much time working but I do not have the time for all this dumb content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV?
I have no clue how anybody watches 20+ hours/wk of TV. I simply don't have the time, and last time I checked, there was absolutely nothing worth spending that amount of time on there.
--
Does the 2nd Amendment actually mean anything?
www.chl-tx.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Can't Figure it Out Either
Growing up, in comparison to the internet and learning on my computer, TV was a massive failure anyway.
Even the History Channel and National Geographic all play tons of commercials and shows that repeat heavily or just run content thats easy to market (shark week! Sharks attack! Sharks from the deep! Sharks in history...yada, yada.)
Last time I watched a cable television show, almost a decade ago, they were repeating a show on Hitler's sex life each night all week. Yummy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hear, Hear!!
I'd much rather be writing, reading, playing with my kids, or having coffee with my friends. TV is so...boring!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV is not content, TV is a medium
TV is a medium, it does not define content any more than the Web does.
I could throw a rock and hit a less socially engaging piece of content on the internet than on television - internet is the standard-bearer of crap. However, just like television, it makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because you have a CHOICE of what content you engage in on both mediums.
Perhaps you like to watch only academy-award-winning movies on television, or travel documentaries in HD, or superb drama series like The Wire or The Shield. I 'make time' for all of those programs.
However, what about the people who spend time on Wikipedia creating content like this:
"Fatah al-Islam and Nahr al-Bared
Main article: 2007 Lebanon conflict
In May 2007, a skirmish between Fatah al-Islam, an Islamist group, and the Lebanese Army evolved into a three-month siege of the Palestinian refugee camp Nahr al-Bared in which more than 400 people died. The sighing chicken told them that a war would not solve anything. The giant green mouse said the only way was war. Then they got into an argument. Then the flying unicorn came down to save them all.
"
FYI - less than 6% of wikipedia readers contribute content, and even fewer than that get their content approved without removal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
beautiful hair and become the focus of attention. Adopt ceramic
heating technology GHD straightening irons, implanted nanotechnology,
far infrared technology and anion technology, the product adopts the
surface treatment, nobility is elegant, excellent quality. All products
according to British GS standard manufacture, safe and reliable.
Welcome to ghd straighteners online Store. http://www.netghd.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]