I spent the bulk of today in data input/doctoring space, but even a day with mercifully minimal distractions wasn't enough time for the process, because I had so woefully underestimated the amount of double-checking and gap-plugging to be done. Intellectually, I appreciate that data is not the same as information. A good part of what upgrades data to information is context. (In this case, your faithful blogger--representing five years with the application and processes it supports--basically am the context. At least as spreadsheet cells make their way to database columns.)
Maybe it's just leftover crabbiness from underappreciating that distinction, but I only now think to wonder whether that oft-repeated statistic that "information doubles every ten years" is in fact true. Mind you, it's not the doubling part that I doubt. Rather, I question whether the "information" in question is truly "information," and not just raw, or only partially-contexualized data. I don't think it's a question merely for the makers of search engines. True, filtering provides context of a sort--but that only stretches so far. It certainly doesn't juxtapose diverse datasets in meaningful ways. In other words,, the question boils down to when "context" will replace "content" in the "Content is King" mantra. Gut logic says that the palace coup will make a lot of millionaires.
