5 ms·

Most saddening, perhaps, is the way in which the Web constrains the use of links. For example: although the link is the primary form of reference on the Web, un

Most saddening, perhaps, is the way in which the Web constrains the use of links. For example: although the link is the primary form of reference on the Web, underpinning the tangle of connections that make the system so useful, the ability to create new links is a privilege granted only to content producers. The vast majority of those interested in a piece of work are merely readers, unable to contribute, only to consume. The sad part is, we already have the technical infrastructure in place to support those user contributions - it's the Comments section of any blog-shaped site. So called "Web 2.0" was all about readers contributing feedback to whichever content was being published through a channel. But the shape it took was not the original hypermedia vision, but a conversation of loosely related comments that could potentially go off-topic. To support the annotation feature described in the article, it would just require that common web platforms allowed their current comment systems to attach comments to paragraphs in the article, and show these comments as side notes. Current moderation functions could be used to separate the wheat from the chaff. But it would require readers to adapt and learn to tap this resource to its fullest potential.

mpweiher 8y ago
> constrains the use of links. https://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/ https://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/
onion2k 8y ago
it would just require that common web platforms allowed their current comment systems to attach comments to paragraphs in the article, and show these comments as side notes I think that's a somewhat view of what a user contribution could look like. Adding feedback is great, but imagine what the web could be if users could do more than just comment. I'd love to see a blog application that supported user contributions like fixing spelling/grammar, adding links, injecting additional paragraphs to explain complex topics, captioning pictures, etc. All those things could be suggested as comments that the author would manually use to improve their article, but I think it'd be better (faster at least) to do it automatically. Idealistically I'm thinking of something that's the best parts of Medium and Wikipedia.
- TuringTest 8y ago
  How is that different from a wiki? :-) Mediawiki, the software behind Wikipedia, already has all those features, includeming the possibility of moderation by privileged users or automatic updates, on a per-page basis. You'd just need to use the software for blog content rather than encyclopedic content.
  - onion2k 8y ago
    How is that different from a wiki? Every app is a CRUD app if you ignore enough detail.
    - TuringTest 8y ago
      I'm asking you about the details that make them different, and which you consider relevant for a "web with user contributions" in the way you described.
      - onion2k 8y ago
        The difference is that those features would be implemented differently in a blogging context. I think that they're things that would improve a collaboration on blog to move from simply getting feedback from users as comments for the author to use to actually collaborating on something to make it better. I haven't thought about what those implementation differences would be; it'd be a lot of work.
superflyguy 8y ago
" it's the Comments section of any blog-shaped site." Something I never read on any site. It's just pure racism/muppets talking shit. If there were a plugin to block them I'd use it; I feel dirty even knowing they're down there. L
- TuringTest 8y ago
  You're reading the comments section of a website right now. Places like Ars Technica or Stack Exchange have a healthy environment in the comments section, so it can be done.
  - superflyguy 8y ago
    This site works because of the small numbers of people who are educated and there's sensible moderation.
    - TuringTest 8y ago
      Yes, precisely. So, it can be done.
      - superflyguy 8y ago
        So what? I should start reading Nazi's comments on other sites now?
- toyg 8y ago
  > Something I never read on any site. I feel sorry for you - the original early-'00 blogosphere was actually very good, with all sorts of people building connections and intelligent debate through comments. After a while, the conversation was so deep that comments ended up being too short, so they had to define Pingbacks so that people could post elsewhere while still connecting with the source material. And then spammers and the political sphere co-opted the technology, and it all went downhill. I think there is still space, for defensively-minded geeks, to create ways to communicate that can keep debate open while shutting down the trolls. It's clear we don't have such a thing at the moment. I fear, however, that well-intentioned researchers like OP will simply end up building new systems that will replicate the mistakes of somewhat-naive early pioneers.
IshKebab 8y ago
No it wasn't. The "Web 2.0" was all about DHTML (remember that?) and AJAX. (The wikipedia article about this seems very confused by the way.)
- TuringTest 8y ago
  That was the technical Web 2.0. Apparently you missed how it was seen by marketing and media people, who couldn't care less about DHTML and Ajax.
fiatjaf 8y ago
http://hypothes.is/ http://hypothes.is/
- TuringTest 8y ago
  Right; we just need everybody, everywhere to adopt hypothes.is; instead of one of all the other competitors. Adopting a single protocol by the masses is something that rarely works. It's much easier to gain critical mass if a server platform (like Wordpress) included an annotation module as part of its default modules, so that it appeared at many websites as soon as they update to the latest version. Then, it could catch on as a popular feature, and other platforms would start to build their own implementations, making it more visible and gaining traction all over the web. (That Wordpress module could very well be the hypothes.is software, if they're compatible. But it really needs to be adopted server-side by a popular service to gain traction).
  - fiatjaf 8y ago
    Not at all. You can adopt it by yourself. There aren't any competitors.
- mbowcutt 8y ago
  Seems to be something the author would like. Then again, hypothesis is a browser extension..
  - tim333 8y ago
    It doesn't seem to have much critical mass. Looking at the HN home page there were two comments >well, news is news after all. made in 2013 and >മലയാളം!! കൊള്ളാം!! in 2015 which is "English !! Wow !!" in Malayalam, a language spoken in Kerala.

mpweiher 8y ago

> constrains the use of links. https://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/ https://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/

onion2k 8y ago

it would just require that common web platforms allowed their current comment systems to attach comments to paragraphs in the article, and show these comments as side notes I think that's a somewhat view of what a user contribution could look like. Adding feedback is great, but imagine what the web could be if users could do more than just comment. I'd love to see a blog application that supported user contributions like fixing spelling/grammar, adding links, injecting additional paragraphs to explain complex topics, captioning pictures, etc. All those things could be suggested as comments that the author would manually use to improve their article, but I think it'd be better (faster at least) to do it automatically. Idealistically I'm thinking of something that's the best parts of Medium and Wikipedia.

TuringTest 8y ago
How is that different from a wiki? :-) Mediawiki, the software behind Wikipedia, already has all those features, includeming the possibility of moderation by privileged users or automatic updates, on a per-page basis. You'd just need to use the software for blog content rather than encyclopedic content.
- onion2k 8y ago
  How is that different from a wiki? Every app is a CRUD app if you ignore enough detail.
  - TuringTest 8y ago
    I'm asking you about the details that make them different, and which you consider relevant for a "web with user contributions" in the way you described.
    - onion2k 8y ago
      The difference is that those features would be implemented differently in a blogging context. I think that they're things that would improve a collaboration on blog to move from simply getting feedback from users as comments for the author to use to actually collaborating on something to make it better. I haven't thought about what those implementation differences would be; it'd be a lot of work.

superflyguy 8y ago

" it's the Comments section of any blog-shaped site." Something I never read on any site. It's just pure racism/muppets talking shit. If there were a plugin to block them I'd use it; I feel dirty even knowing they're down there. L

TuringTest 8y ago
You're reading the comments section of a website right now. Places like Ars Technica or Stack Exchange have a healthy environment in the comments section, so it can be done.
- superflyguy 8y ago
  This site works because of the small numbers of people who are educated and there's sensible moderation.
  - TuringTest 8y ago
    Yes, precisely. So, it can be done.
    - superflyguy 8y ago
      So what? I should start reading Nazi's comments on other sites now?
toyg 8y ago
> Something I never read on any site. I feel sorry for you - the original early-'00 blogosphere was actually very good, with all sorts of people building connections and intelligent debate through comments. After a while, the conversation was so deep that comments ended up being too short, so they had to define Pingbacks so that people could post elsewhere while still connecting with the source material. And then spammers and the political sphere co-opted the technology, and it all went downhill. I think there is still space, for defensively-minded geeks, to create ways to communicate that can keep debate open while shutting down the trolls. It's clear we don't have such a thing at the moment. I fear, however, that well-intentioned researchers like OP will simply end up building new systems that will replicate the mistakes of somewhat-naive early pioneers.

IshKebab 8y ago

No it wasn't. The "Web 2.0" was all about DHTML (remember that?) and AJAX. (The wikipedia article about this seems very confused by the way.)

TuringTest 8y ago
That was the technical Web 2.0. Apparently you missed how it was seen by marketing and media people, who couldn't care less about DHTML and Ajax.

fiatjaf 8y ago

http://hypothes.is/ http://hypothes.is/

TuringTest 8y ago
Right; we just need everybody, everywhere to adopt hypothes.is; instead of one of all the other competitors. Adopting a single protocol by the masses is something that rarely works. It's much easier to gain critical mass if a server platform (like Wordpress) included an annotation module as part of its default modules, so that it appeared at many websites as soon as they update to the latest version. Then, it could catch on as a popular feature, and other platforms would start to build their own implementations, making it more visible and gaining traction all over the web. (That Wordpress module could very well be the hypothes.is software, if they're compatible. But it really needs to be adopted server-side by a popular service to gain traction).
- fiatjaf 8y ago
  Not at all. You can adopt it by yourself. There aren't any competitors.
mbowcutt 8y ago
Seems to be something the author would like. Then again, hypothesis is a browser extension..
- tim333 8y ago
  It doesn't seem to have much critical mass. Looking at the HN home page there were two comments >well, news is news after all. made in 2013 and >മലയാളം!! കൊള്ളാം!! in 2015 which is "English !! Wow !!" in Malayalam, a language spoken in Kerala.