3 ms·

This whole article is a complete mess. This part is one of the funniest and shows how clueless the mainstream media really is: >>Last summer researchers in Pal

by nickb 19y ago

This whole article is a complete mess. This part is one of the funniest and shows how clueless the mainstream media really is: >>Last summer researchers in Palo Alto, Calif., uncovered secret elitism at Wikipedia when they found that 1 percent of the reference site's users make more than 50 percent of its edits Huh?! As soon as you read a huge misconception like that, most people have a tendency to completely disregard the whole argument. Finally, as we all are aware, experts never argue among each other and they are never wrong. Right.

s_baar 19y ago
Newsweek? More like Non-Newsweek!
pchristensen 19y ago
I loved that one: 1% of how many users? 5 million? So there are 5,000 people writing an encyclopedia for free? Wow, how undemocratic. 1% sounds small until you look at what the base is.
- derefr 19y ago
  There are 5,000 people editing an encyclopedia for free--the majority of edits are simply small clarity/spelling/grammar/punctuation revisions, and the wikipedia "core" making them is made of mostly janitors. The content writers are by and large infrequent and/or first-time users. [citation needed]
- Kaizyn 19y ago
  I think you mean 50,000?
  - pchristensen 19y ago
    Yes I do. Yes, yes I do.
cawel 19y ago
Slate.com had an interesting article on this topic of Web 2.0 democracy: http://www.slate.com/id/2184487 http://www.slate.com/id/2184487 And it went in the same direction as this Newsweek article: debunking the myth that most of the users are contributing to Digg or Wikipedia, in their respective community, as implied by the Web 2.0 democracy concept. Rather, "At both Digg and Wikipedia, small groups of users have outsized authority." (Slate.com) Think about the tight moderation at Slashdot given to a selected few, or the 1% at Wikipedia. Most of Wikipedia edits are not done by 100%, not 50%, but only 1% of their users. As a result, one cannot call it a web 2.0 participative democracy. And I think that's the message from both Newsweek and Slate. Of course Newsweek "wish[es]" the experts had more eyeballs/attention, since that's their business, to be news experts. But while user-generated content is certainly not "out" (that's probably exaggerated wording to catch the eye), the point is that there is a desirable need to have those experts (or in other words a kind of elite) in order to have quality content.

by nickb 19y ago

s_baar 19y ago

Newsweek? More like Non-Newsweek!

pchristensen 19y ago

I loved that one: 1% of how many users? 5 million? So there are 5,000 people writing an encyclopedia for free? Wow, how undemocratic. 1% sounds small until you look at what the base is.

derefr 19y ago
There are 5,000 people editing an encyclopedia for free--the majority of edits are simply small clarity/spelling/grammar/punctuation revisions, and the wikipedia "core" making them is made of mostly janitors. The content writers are by and large infrequent and/or first-time users. [citation needed]
Kaizyn 19y ago
I think you mean 50,000?
- pchristensen 19y ago
  Yes I do. Yes, yes I do.

cawel 19y ago

Slate.com had an interesting article on this topic of Web 2.0 democracy: http://www.slate.com/id/2184487 http://www.slate.com/id/2184487 And it went in the same direction as this Newsweek article: debunking the myth that most of the users are contributing to Digg or Wikipedia, in their respective community, as implied by the Web 2.0 democracy concept. Rather, "At both Digg and Wikipedia, small groups of users have outsized authority." (Slate.com) Think about the tight moderation at Slashdot given to a selected few, or the 1% at Wikipedia. Most of Wikipedia edits are not done by 100%, not 50%, but only 1% of their users. As a result, one cannot call it a web 2.0 participative democracy. And I think that's the message from both Newsweek and Slate. Of course Newsweek "wish[es]" the experts had more eyeballs/attention, since that's their business, to be news experts. But while user-generated content is certainly not "out" (that's probably exaggerated wording to catch the eye), the point is that there is a desirable need to have those experts (or in other words a kind of elite) in order to have quality content.