More often than not, I refer to myself as a typist.

Great conversation here. I’m excited to see people’s perspectives. You’ve got a passionate community here, Ramsey. (Not like I had to tell YOU.)

An expert can answer my questions, or provide insight on a subject I am informed about. An expert knows what I know and more. An expert has past history/experience with a “thing/concept/idea/process/technology/application/hypothesis/model” that data has been gleaned and analyzed. An expert can train me with the knowledge he/she has. An expert has no age requirement. An expert can be wrong. Can an expert be wrong?

We all could pull together individual lists of qualifying questions to hand someone claiming to be an “expert” in social media. My questions would be different then yours. We may have overlap (I would hope we have some overlap). If that person answers my questions correctly and not yours, are they an expert? By who’s definition? Am I the original expert testing someone? What makes me the expert to test you? Would us as a collective social media experts qualify to create a test that qualifies someone as an expert?

As for the legitimacy of a “digital native” being superior, that ranks up there with a comment a wise old photo professor once told me… “to be a good photographer you have to have an eye. You can be taught form, light, composition, chemistry… you can’t be taught to have an eye for it.”

First and foremost, I believe that @Aaron is right. There is a clear definition of digital native. It is a relevant term (and I believe he has correctly defined it). And being a digital native does not infer any “expertise”.

I think that using the legal standard for “expert” witness is not necessarily a good standard (@Hamlin). Most lawyers I know are not well-versed in this space (or technology in general) to know an “expert” from a non-expert. They basically find someone who has enough credibility in society, as well as a person partial to their point of view that the opposition will accept.

So is there such a thing as a social media expert? Does that social media expert have to have had success as @Patchchoard suggest? Here is my view:

It is certainly important for people (anyone!) to share great ideas, things that have worked, things that have not worked, best practices, etc. with others. Given that the mainstream penetration of many of these concepts has not been firmly established, and the ground is moving all the time (and fast), it is important for people to generally illuminate and teach others about the concepts at play.

If you do this with some over-confidence and gusto, in clear, declarative sentences, in front of larger audiences, with a great PowerPoint deck… people have a tendency to consider you an expert. If you are a bit vain and adopt an arrogant tone about your own intelligence, you probably consider yourself an expert. But you are probably not (at least in this space).

In order to be an expert, you have to have special knowledge or skill. “Special” is a relative term (meaning, some people are special because other people are not). In that way, anyone who knows more than the average person is a social media expert. So we are all experts. And if we are all experts, then of course, none of us are experts.

In the end, the technology is far too immature and is still being adopted and applied, which prevents anyone from really being an expert. The experts of the future will certainly be anyone who is immersed in the technology, cares about it enough, and is giving it deeper thought especially with regard to its implication and evolution.

So, the short answer to your question, is that we shouldn’t necessarily consider Shel, Brogan, Scoble, and others “experts” any more than we should consider you or others in this comment thread experts. We should probably just keep our ears tuned to ANYONE with interesting thoughts, especially those exposed to a bit more.

If, hypothetically, you were in a lawsuit involving the use of social media, who would be your strongest expert?

Here’s where I came down: Training is out because there is no social media training – no degree programs (that I’m aware of) thoroughly exploring social media. That leaves experience. First, how much experience can a person have in such a new and evolving field? Second, which is more valuable – (1) first-hand experience as a social media native or (2) decades of media study coupled with the most recent of that being dedicated to social media? Probably depends on the issue. If the issue is reach or effectivenesss of social media in light of media as a whole, you would probably want the latter. If the issue is use and design of social media, you would probably want the former.

In sum, in such a new field, I agree with you that it’s a stretch to assume that any person could be considered a general “social media expert.”

* In regards to the discussion of what the definition of a “digital native” is — I stand somewhat divided. If you had asked me when I wrote this blog post, I would of told you digital natives don’t learn to be digital, their lives are ingrained in it. Society as a whole, their friends — life has them surrounded and they know no other way. They didn’t learn to be digital.

However, after more thought I put towards this, even that stance has it’s fallacies — no way is it bulletproof.

After hearing @ChrisBrogan and @Aaron’s points, I started thinking is it even correct to use the phrase “digital native” at all? I’ve tabled my thoughts and feel a little unfulfilled on my conclusion here. I will for sure be posting a follow-up blog in the future.

It still makes me wonder though, if you do not assimilate to a culture – even a culture that is all around you, are you truly a ‘digital native’?

Are natives the most skilled? The non-native English Professor analogy is great here, but I think that with anything it helps to have an outside perspective. So, what becomes more valuable is collectively understanding and addressing expertise – with those that are native to it, and those that are not. This is a skill that a collective posses rather than an individual – kind of like what’s happening right here on this blog.

Very very interesting to think about this in more than one dimension.

And then another question: are natives the most skilled?

This was really interesting to consider.

The real change being wrought upon society is not one of new tools–be it Usenet or Twitter–but of hypertextual logic vs. linear thinking, a new paradigm of public vs. private, etc. If you were born in the 70s (and I was), I don’t think you can lay claim to being wired this way from birth. Age seems to me the ultimate arbiter, though I don’t think determining an exact date is useful or possible.

The language analogy is very appropriate. A native English speaker is not necessarily more expert in the language than a non-native English professor, probably considerably less expert. Heck, there are some very poor speakers of a native language.

Being a native does not necessarily imply expertise. In fact, the generation of natives is only recently reaching an age where they can possess the intellectual maturity needed to add their native experience to the body of expertise. As Ramsey suggests, I’m excited to see what that combination brings. I don’t see an attack on “the experts” in this assertion (except as a way to grab a little attention …kudos.)

I’d say experts in the space have proven track records of developing networks and creating social influence (regardless of age). And like @ Pactchchord mentioned, experts should have case studies of both success and failure – cause experts in emerging technology fail too.

I’m with you Ramsey, there are a lot of self proclaimed ‘social media experts’ with a blog, a twitter account, and a hand full of followers – many of which might want to back off of their claim of ‘social media expert’ in an ever changing landscape.

Additionally, its interesting that many of us in the digital space are more like ‘social media experimenters’. Even those with backgrounds in social sciences and anthropology are still writing the book on how people behave, connect, and are influenced online.

I’ve been blogging since 1998, when it was called journaling. I used WYSIWYG editing software created by Dan Bricklan (who created VisiCalc back in the day).

100% of the media I ingest comes from the Internet or Netflix. I have no TV signal. I don’t listen to terrestrial radio (except for NPR).

I’ve been online in some form or another for 24 years and counting.

I’d suggest that’s pretty reasonable native street cred.

as more and more people dive into social networking sites, they are hungry to know best practices, tips and tricks, etc. if you position yourself as someone who offers type of content, you’ll find traffic naturally gravitates to you. of course, the beauty of social media is that this content spurs further discussion and refinement. crowdsourcing at its finest.

@m_dunn

Basically, I want proof that they can walk the walk and not simply talk it. There are tons of carpetbaggers out there that can do the latter and have nothing to prove that they can accomplish the former.