TV Schedule

Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy


  3. khsing
  4. related topics
Social-media sites like Wikipedia and Digg are celebrated as shining examples of Web democracy, places built by millions of Web users who all act as writers, editors, and voters. In reality, a small number of people are running the show. According to researchers in Palo Alto, 1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits. The site also deploys bots—supervised by a special caste of devoted users—that help standardize format, prevent vandalism, and root out folks who flood the site with obscenities. This is not the wisdom of the crowd. This is the wisdom of the chaperones.
khsing

4 responses // Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy

  • Somebody's gotta do it. There are people out there who get their kicks out of messing up sites any way they can, so they must be monitored.
    TomBaker
  • Oh intresting I thought that anyone could write anything but is nice to know that it has chaperones!! B/C we all know that there are some people that have nothing to do but mess up things!!
    bluesky3147
  • Some people, yes, but don't try and make bogey men and folk devils justify the fact that there's as much of an elite on the internet as there is anywhere else.

    My article on Albert Camus' wife, a noted woman in her own right, was taken down, and I was threatened with a banning, because I was adding things "that had no relevance to anything". It's disgusting.

    A small group of people, whoever they are, have no right to tell other users and contributors what people are interested in. If it's blatant filth or slander, I can understand, but to say no one cares and then adding your own article about bridges in New York is just disgraceful.
    AceHardchester
  • http://vocalnation.net
    For true web democracy, check out http://vocalnation.net/
    McScreedle

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.