USA Today takes a pop at internet techies citing the Wisdom of Crowds, suggesting that the recent digg and wikipedia controversies may show the idea is fallacious. David Freedman takes another swipe in ‘What’s Next: The Idiocy of Crowds’ published at Inc.com, saying that on the internet, “the scum tends to
| ||||
Aaron Swartz contributes some fascinating analysis to the study of who writes Wikipedia. Founder Jimmy Wales has often stated that a small number of people make the largest number of contributions. He told Stanford University that “the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits,” for example. Swartz News voting site digg is to re-adjust its story promotion algorithm to give less weight to votes from friends. Founder Kevin Rose writes on the digg blog: This algorithm update will look at the unique digging diversity of the individuals digging the story. Users that follow a gaming pattern will have less promotion weight. You know we’re in trouble when people start comparing the Web 2.0 trend to postmodernism. In my general experience, it’s a sure sign that the conversation is about to disappear up its own backside. However, praise is due to Dr Paddy Byers who very cleverly teased out some of the links in a piece he Well, it isn’t. But we’ve stretched this handy little tool a bit further than it was ever supposed to go. Think about some of the most successful Web 2.0 businesses in the context of broken email and a connection starts to form. Ed Yourdon visited eight Bay area Web 2.0 companies last week and drew together some of Douglas Fisher, who has helped set up the online community newspaper Hartsville Today over the last year, has published a 75-page guide (PDF File) to citizen journalism and running a community paper online. It’s well worth a read. Perhaps of especial interest is what he says about training for these new journalists: Other sites have done |             | |||
CC-BY-NC-SA 2012 twopointouch - All Rights Reserved |
||||
Recent Comments