It's getting harder to be a Wikipedia-hater. The user-generated and -edited online encyclopedia—which doesn't even require contributors to register—somehow holds its own against the Encyclopedia Britannica in accuracy, a Nature study concluded, and has many times more entries. But even though people are catching up to the idea that Wikipedia is a force for good, there are still huge misconceptions about what makes the encyclopedia tick. While Wikipedia does show the creative potential of online communities, it's a mistake to assume the site owes its success to the wisdom of the online crowd....In the examples in the article, the 'chaperones' or super-users emerge naturally, and are responsible for the majority of content. However, not every site employs its chaperones in the same way... Perhaps there are some models here for PD(Q)'s eventual development.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Web 2.0 and User Democracy
In light of the continuing discussion regarding the PD(Q), it seems to me that the following article - "The Wisdom of the Chaperones: Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy" posted on Slate has something interesting to offer: