Comments on: Wisdom 2.0 http://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/wisdom-20/ web 2.0, blogs and social media Mon, 30 May 2011 20:58:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: twopointouch » No, you show me the moneyhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/wisdom-20/#comment-103 twopointouch » No, you show me the money Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:51:58 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/05/wisdom-20/#comment-103 [...] Does this cross the line into traditional business rather than Web 2.0 business? Maybe. But if I owned one of these companies, that really wouldn’t keep me up at night. Being a Web 2.0 business doesn’t give you a license to run at a loss, I’m afraid to say, so get over it. In any case, as Anthony Mayfield has recently pointed out, many of these ‘wisdom of crowds’ services obey a 1% rule. That is to say, one percent of us make a video, vote for the news, create a blog, while the remainder either comment on it, or digest it as they always did. As Marc Fawzi recently argued against a naive post I made, even Google operates a hierarchy, since only the producers and taste-makers actually produce any links to anything - again, it’s the 1% that are creating PageRanks, not the 99%. When clever web applications harness the intelligence of their users, they’ll only be effective when the intelligence they’re harnessing is up to the job. Everyone has a right to musical taste, so last.fm will work by including everyone. On the other hand, digg voters are, by-and-large, technology enthusiasts, so they’ll produce a front page appealing to tech fans. Fewer people, but the right interests and enthusiasms to work for large numbers of bystanders. [...] […] Does this cross the line into traditional business rather than Web 2.0 business? Maybe. But if I owned one of these companies, that really wouldn’t keep me up at night. Being a Web 2.0 business doesn’t give you a license to run at a loss, I’m afraid to say, so get over it. In any case, as Anthony Mayfield has recently pointed out, many of these ‘wisdom of crowds’ services obey a 1% rule. That is to say, one percent of us make a video, vote for the news, create a blog, while the remainder either comment on it, or digest it as they always did. As Marc Fawzi recently argued against a naive post I made, even Google operates a hierarchy, since only the producers and taste-makers actually produce any links to anything — again, it’s the 1% that are creating PageRanks, not the 99%. When clever web applications harness the intelligence of their users, they’ll only be effective when the intelligence they’re harnessing is up to the job. Everyone has a right to musical taste, so last.fm will work by including everyone. On the other hand, digg voters are, by-and-large, technology enthusiasts, so they’ll produce a front page appealing to tech fans. Fewer people, but the right interests and enthusiasms to work for large numbers of bystanders. […]

]]> By: memoirs on a rainy day » Scoble on Rocketboomgate or how the monetizing of vlogshttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/wisdom-20/#comment-29 memoirs on a rainy day » Scoble on Rocketboomgate or how the monetizing of vlogs Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:14:29 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/05/wisdom-20/#comment-29 [...] Evolving trends from someone that isn’t Marc Fawzi [...] […] Evolving trends from someone that isn’t Marc Fawzi […]

]]> By: twopointouch » Shot down in flameshttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/wisdom-20/#comment-27 twopointouch » Shot down in flames Thu, 06 Jul 2006 20:02:48 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/05/wisdom-20/#comment-27 [...] Well, the wisdom of crowds debate rages on. As Marc quite rightly points out in the comments to my last post, Google rankings depending on in-bound links means that the crowd in question has already qualified itself as a content producer rather than a consumer: it isn’t “the masses”. In the meantime, David points to the rather unwise hierarchy that exists in many crowds such as your class at school. [...] […] Well, the wisdom of crowds debate rages on. As Marc quite rightly points out in the comments to my last post, Google rankings depending on in-bound links means that the crowd in question has already qualified itself as a content producer rather than a consumer: it isn’t “the masses”. In the meantime, David points to the rather unwise hierarchy that exists in many crowds such as your class at school. […]

]]> By: Bruce Bostonhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/wisdom-20/#comment-26 Bruce Boston Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:04:04 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/05/wisdom-20/#comment-26 Marc: "Given the non-absoluteness of the universe, I believe that opinions that don’t bifurcate can only be right 50% of the time (it’s funny and true.)" Ok, ok, so...basically? 'All arguments are wrong, therefore any argument is wrong, and since this is an argument, it must be wrong as well.....that is unless you then add sub-argument that states that your argument is wrong, in which case either your original or your sub-argument is more less spot on...' Hmm, I guess we could bet on Red, Black and Green and be assured that one of those 3 is a winner.... Not sure where this leads to, but it doesn't seem very productive in figuring out why both Digg and Google are so popular.... -bruce Marc: “Given the non-absoluteness of the universe, I believe that opinions that don’t bifurcate can only be right 50% of the time (it’s funny and true.)”

Ok, ok, so…basically?

‘All arguments are wrong, therefore any argument is wrong, and since this is an argument, it must be wrong as well.….that is unless you then add sub-argument that states that your argument is wrong, in which case either your original or your sub-argument is more less spot on…’

Hmm, I guess we could bet on Red, Black and Green and be assured that one of those 3 is a winner.…

Not sure where this leads to, but it doesn’t seem very productive in figuring out why both Digg and Google are so popular.…

–bruce

]]> By: ranghttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/wisdom-20/#comment-25 rang Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:47:09 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/05/wisdom-20/#comment-25 M-theory, now that is getting pretty theoretical right there. The whole SEO and traffic generating phenomenon isn't recent, but proves that a lot of people are trying hard to market themselves. I do agree that blogs are a form of product and that some producers would like to monetize them at some point. I find that the whole culture of the web is decentralizing itself from the main stream. Meaning that people are forming cliques that aren't always thought of. For example, think of a blogger who reads a blog he likes. He adds it to his blogroll, he checks out the blogroll of the blog he reads and so on and so forth. M-theory, now that is getting pretty theoretical right there. The whole SEO and traffic generating phenomenon isn’t recent, but proves that a lot of people are trying hard to market themselves. I do agree that blogs are a form of product and that some producers would like to monetize them at some point.

I find that the whole culture of the web is decentralizing itself from the main stream. Meaning that people are forming cliques that aren’t always thought of. For example, think of a blogger who reads a blog he likes. He adds it to his blogroll, he checks out the blogroll of the blog he reads and so on and so forth.

]]> By: David Cruickshankhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/wisdom-20/#comment-24 David Cruickshank Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:40:31 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/05/wisdom-20/#comment-24 I have posted some further thoughts on this here http://internet-biz.blogspot.com/2006/07/problem-with-crowds.html I have posted some further thoughts on this here http://internet-biz.blogspot.com/2006/07/problem-with-crowds.html

]]> By: Evolving Trends » Hierarchies, Crowds, Democracies and Dictatorshipshttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/wisdom-20/#comment-23 Evolving Trends » Hierarchies, Crowds, Democracies and Dictatorships Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:29:23 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/05/wisdom-20/#comment-23 [...] Wisdom 2.0 [...] […] Wisdom 2.0 […]

]]> By: Evolving Trends » It’s All About Poetryhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/wisdom-20/#comment-22 Evolving Trends » It’s All About Poetry Thu, 06 Jul 2006 07:45:31 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/05/wisdom-20/#comment-22 [...] This post is a recycling of my response to a comment made by David Cruickshank on Ian Delaney’s TwoPointTouch. [...] […] This post is a recycling of my response to a comment made by David Cruickshank on Ian Delaney’s TwoPointTouch. […]

]]> By: Marchttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/wisdom-20/#comment-21 Marc Thu, 06 Jul 2006 07:33:18 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/05/wisdom-20/#comment-21 I agree with David regarding the fact that there are no absolutes. It follows from Godel's proof of incompleteness (meta-mathematics) about the very basis for formal theory and proof: mathematics. Richard Dawkins registered a similar opinion, that reality, logic, science and everything we know is the result of the software that runs our mind (I hope it's not Web 2.0 software.) That's why I generally start the most important statements in my posts with "I believe" since there is nothing else at the end of the day but my personal belief vs that of others. Given the non-absoluteness of the universe, I believe that opinions that don't bifurcate can only be right 50% of the time (it's funny and true.) The latest thought in String Non-Theory is that the 3rd dimension is an illusion. I in my belief, everything ultimately boils down to an illusion, and it all comes down to 'poetry.' Yes, poetry. No more, no less. :) Marc I agree with David regarding the fact that there are no absolutes. It follows from Godel’s proof of incompleteness (meta-mathematics) about the very basis for formal theory and proof: mathematics.

Richard Dawkins registered a similar opinion, that reality, logic, science and everything we know is the result of the software that runs our mind (I hope it’s not Web 2.0 software.)

That’s why I generally start the most important statements in my posts with “I believe” since there is nothing else at the end of the day but my personal belief vs that of others.

Given the non-absoluteness of the universe, I believe that opinions that don’t bifurcate can only be right 50% of the time (it’s funny and true.)

The latest thought in String Non-Theory is that the 3rd dimension is an illusion. I in my belief, everything ultimately boils down to an illusion, and it all comes down to ‘poetry.’

Yes, poetry.

No more, no less.

:)

Marc

]]> By: Bruce Bostonhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/wisdom-20/#comment-20 Bruce Boston Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:01:09 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/07/05/wisdom-20/#comment-20 Ian: "Presumably, only someone with something to say is going to do that, though, which by-and-large is the sort of taste maker we want, isn’t it?" Allowing someone to elect themselves as the spokesperson for the rest of us isn't all that hard....the problem comes when Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Disney, etc and every blogger with a blog, all want to elect themselves. So fine, they are all taste makers, now when they disagree who gets the final vote? The crowds of course. Call them wise, call them stupid, call them powerful call them weak, call them whatever you want, but just remember that at the end of the day, the crowds are the ones that decide if you are the next google or not. That said, on the other side of the coin, and yes, I believe that all economists should come with both hands prepared to make statements, on the other hand, I think it is well within the right of the 'producers' to set the rules for the game. Jury selection, for example, is no small task, and the rules of that 'game' have been fine tuned and tweak for centuries. Are the flawless, hardly, do they do pretty good job, yep. I think we can say the same about Google, are the rules that Google uses flawless, hardly, do they do a pretty good job, I think a large number of people vote yes with their browsers everyday. Digg, may or may not be the right set of rules. Show me a social system and I would be hard presses not to find a way to 'hack' it. From airline upgrades, to real estate brokerage discounts, there are few, if any, social systems that don't have a backdoor built into them. Does the existence of a favorable hack, discount the validity of a system? Hardly. It's easy enough for me to pull the fire alarm and get out of a days work, but at some point my employer is gonna figure that out. In a similar way, getting a few clicks from Digg users may or may not be proof that the whole system is de-bunk, or maybe not. One thing for sure, there are more than a few companies taking more notice of Digg and the unique browsers that view that URL seems to be going up. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=medium&compare_sites=&y=t&url=www.digg.com#top Also, I do think that Digg has a hierarchy; You'l also notice that 'Diggers' are not that important in the overall system. See: http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/index.php?p=88 From what I know, it's not a straight populus vote, and yes, I would expect a number of click throughs to any link listed, as they have a ton of people checking stuff out. -bruce Ian: “Presumably, only someone with something to say is going to do that, though, which by-and-large is the sort of taste maker we want, isn’t it?”

Allowing someone to elect themselves as the spokesperson for the rest of us isn’t all that hard.…the problem comes when Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Disney, etc and every blogger with a blog, all want to elect themselves.

So fine, they are all taste makers, now when they disagree who gets the final vote? The crowds of course. Call them wise, call them stupid, call them powerful call them weak, call them whatever you want, but just remember that at the end of the day, the crowds are the ones that decide if you are the next google or not.

That said, on the other side of the coin, and yes, I believe that all economists should come with both hands prepared to make statements, on the other hand, I think it is well within the right of the ‘producers’ to set the rules for the game.

Jury selection, for example, is no small task, and the rules of that ‘game’ have been fine tuned and tweak for centuries. Are the flawless, hardly, do they do pretty good job, yep. I think we can say the same about Google, are the rules that Google uses flawless, hardly, do they do a pretty good job, I think a large number of people vote yes with their browsers everyday.

Digg, may or may not be the right set of rules. Show me a social system and I would be hard presses not to find a way to ‘hack’ it. From airline upgrades, to real estate brokerage discounts, there are few, if any, social systems that don’t have a backdoor built into them.

Does the existence of a favorable hack, discount the validity of a system? Hardly. It’s easy enough for me to pull the fire alarm and get out of a days work, but at some point my employer is gonna figure that out. In a similar way, getting a few clicks from Digg users may or may not be proof that the whole system is de-bunk, or maybe not. One thing for sure, there are more than a few companies taking more notice of Digg and the unique browsers that view that URL seems to be going up.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=medium&compare_sites=&y=t&url=www.digg.com#top

Also, I do think that Digg has a hierarchy; You’l also notice that ‘Diggers’ are not that important in the overall system.
See:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/index.php?p=88

From what I know, it’s not a straight populus vote, and yes, I would expect a number of click throughs to any link listed, as they have a ton of people checking stuff out.

–bruce

]]>