Lots of polarizing stuff flying around about Wikipedia and the quality of its
entries, or rather, lack thereof.
Ditto polarizing diatribes against the
veneration of the amateur and arguments
against collective intelligence, both of
which are perceived as characteristic of Web 2.0. Right. Well, tempting as it is to fall into the game of diametrical
opposites, I'm going to hazard a guess that the real truth and actual proactive solutions lie somewhere between all the
insanely hyperbolic hype surrounding Web 2.0 right now and the dismissive "command/control/hierarchy is the only way to
quality" trap from which we've just fought so hard to free our minds. What are your thoughts on the issue of Wikipedia
quality? Could it benefit from some measure of control, and what would that control look like? Or are there merely
growing pains on the way to an even deeper understanding of and appreciation of collective intelligence? And one more —
do you feel that you read all sources more critically now
in the age of multi-faceted media?
[Conversation joyously tracked via Memeorandum]
The quality of Wikipedia and the amorality of Web 2.0
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. "the real truth and actual proactive solutions lie somewhere between all the insanely hyperbolic hype surrounding Web 2.0 right now and the dismissive “command/control/hierarchy is the only way to quality” trap"
Absolutely. The truth always lies somewhere between the hypers and the cynics.
Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by PeterCashmore
3. Wikipedia is beating itself up because of the low quality, but still I think they are pretty good compared to most webpages when it comes to the quality of the information. Quality or not one should always be critical of the correctness of information presented on the web.
4. To say that Web 2.0 is amoral implies that it had a morality to begin with. This morality could only be that of it’s participants. And to call all of it’s participants amoral, in my opinion, can only be a generalization drenched in fallacy. That said, I do understand and share Carr’s caution of venerating the amateur and distrusting the professional. After all, there is a reason why the pros are pros. I would never want to help propagate false or inaccurate information.
I wonder though, at what point did this shift occur? At what point did the amateur opinion ever come close to trumping the professional’s? My only supposition that I’ll enter into the fray is that of Marshall McLuhan: The medium is indeed the message. Has the medium so radically changed whereby the message of the amateur takes on equal weight to that of the pro? Has the medium brought about a social paradox whereby social intelligence and “the hype” eclipse and overshadow the clout of the seasoned individual? Is there a reversal mechanism in play now, or will there be in some not-too-distant future? More questions than answers here.
I'm writing more about it here.
Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by Andrew Lin
1. Hi Barb,
Yes, you definitely hit the nail on the head with the command/control route to quality. It's obviously untrue (as the only means to produce quality) yet it does seem highly retentive folks just can't stand to see people doing their own thing to get there, even if it takes a while to sort out how to do it.
It also goes back to who polices the police too I think. Finally, amateur competition shouldn't be threatening unless it is in fact a significant threat, which self-emergent information sources will always be to established hierarchies.
Anyway, the middle-ground is a good place to be here like you say. I just knew where it was so I could stand on it. :-)
Best,
Dion
Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by Dion Hinchcliffe