What if user-contributed content on the web really isn’t a good thing. I mean, isn’t there a good reason why we have edited newspaper and books and such? Maybe everyone and his brother shouldn’t just be spewing whatever they want over blogs and Twitter. Maybe the egalitarianism and democracy of the web will lead us to anarchy…both online and offline. Maybe Web 2.0 is the beginning of the end.
Sometimes you come across the most vile, wretched crud online and think “This person shouldn’t be allowed to pollute the web with this filth.” It’s just noise, and we have too much of it. Or maybe it’s just me.
Of course, the irony of this thought is that I’m blogging it.
OK, I give in–I’m actually all for user-created content, but I still highly value editorial and peer-review processes. Can the two co-exist?
Pingback: The Real World at Twan van Elk
>I’m actually all for user-created content, but I still highly value editorial and peer-review processes. Can the two co-exist?
I believe they have to co-exist, and indeed, the first naturally leads to the next. Giving individuals the tools to create is fantastic, but it simply leads to an overload of data. In order to actually access useful information we need a way to categorize, rank and review. What is digg-ing or tagging other than a way for us to rank something as worthy of our notice? Just as the google pagerank algorithm uses links to a site as a sign of its authority, we do the same thing when we digg or comment on some piece of content online. I believe that experts can rise to the top organically, or we can choose to surface subject matter experts.