Policing the net ?
Mention Web 2.0 in front of an IT expert or a tech geek and you’d hear mild snickering directed at the comment, however intelligent you try to sound. Trust me; I’ve been on the receiving end a few times. But Web 2.0 is a reality and it’s been silently changing the communication channels and protocols of propagating information on our beloved “set of tubes” aka the Internet. The beginning of the revolution was as we all know blogs (especially self-proclaimed exceptional blogs like this). From there it spread far and wide. We had the Flickrs, the YouTubes, the GMails, the Wikipedias, the Diggs and a host of other applications come up.
Web 2.0, basically, is the phenomenon where you control the content that the web delivers to you. It is to traditional web what open source is to closed source software, what blogs are to web-pages and what wikis and feeds are to encyclopedias and news sites. It is where all users directly affect the content that is served to all other web users. But in this open form of communication emerges a problem unique to the internet – policing and controlling the content. When I say unique to internet, it’s because the internet never had that problem. It was always solved by the site’s webmaster controlling the communication and content on his page. And the problem is certainly not new to our lives, where the dilemma always is the balance between freedom and order. And the problem remains as vexing as ever in this new avatar of the internet.
A while back there was a lot of talk about the content on Wikipedia and other wiki sites being incorrect, misleading and often times even biased. Blogs, just like Flickr and YouTube, have been the target of the decency patrol ever since they came to the fore. There’s also been the talk of the content served on Digg being more pop culture based and less informative. For example post the “Coke and Mentos trick” story and you have more chances of it coming to the front page of Digg than you would have of a story about …oh say… the consequences of market fluctuations. Then again, you have to wonder if that isn’t actually what the purpose of it all was.
And while I defend these services and speak of these “allegations” with a note of sarcasm, I have to admit most of them are actually real problems or at least issues that require an amount of discussion.
Go to digg.com and watch a bunch of “Top Ten lists” and NSFW (Not Safe For Work) YouTube video posts appear on the front page along with scattered regular news articles. Here's a sample of the top stories today...the effects of collective wisdom so to speak.
A good article on the various aspects of the Digg story appears on CNN
http://tinyurl.com/kmkk2
This BBC news story, from about a year ago, reports the unpopular decision to tighten the posting and logging rules on Wikipedia, to eliminate false postings and edits by users
http://tinyurl.com/ygsdff
Blogs are proven to be biased simply because they are the personal opinions of an individual. How it affects the opinions of the collective is the matter of discussion. But then that discussion could be held for a host of traditional news networks and newspapers too.
So yes, there is that problem of letting things go out of hand. And yes, the problem does require review. But suggest that we change the spirit and ideology of this unique communication revolution that has emerged in the past half-decade, is not just wrong it’s almost ridiculous. The need for constant evolution is ever present. Things have to change as usual with people coming up with ideas to change this stream of communication to serve better quality information. And maybe one day when we do solve this freedom versus order debate for our beloved Internet, we may be able to bring the same concept of individual freedom within collective responsibility to our day to day life. If only things ever turned out that simple…
Web 2.0, basically, is the phenomenon where you control the content that the web delivers to you. It is to traditional web what open source is to closed source software, what blogs are to web-pages and what wikis and feeds are to encyclopedias and news sites. It is where all users directly affect the content that is served to all other web users. But in this open form of communication emerges a problem unique to the internet – policing and controlling the content. When I say unique to internet, it’s because the internet never had that problem. It was always solved by the site’s webmaster controlling the communication and content on his page. And the problem is certainly not new to our lives, where the dilemma always is the balance between freedom and order. And the problem remains as vexing as ever in this new avatar of the internet.
A while back there was a lot of talk about the content on Wikipedia and other wiki sites being incorrect, misleading and often times even biased. Blogs, just like Flickr and YouTube, have been the target of the decency patrol ever since they came to the fore. There’s also been the talk of the content served on Digg being more pop culture based and less informative. For example post the “Coke and Mentos trick” story and you have more chances of it coming to the front page of Digg than you would have of a story about …oh say… the consequences of market fluctuations. Then again, you have to wonder if that isn’t actually what the purpose of it all was.
And while I defend these services and speak of these “allegations” with a note of sarcasm, I have to admit most of them are actually real problems or at least issues that require an amount of discussion.
Go to digg.com and watch a bunch of “Top Ten lists” and NSFW (Not Safe For Work) YouTube video posts appear on the front page along with scattered regular news articles. Here's a sample of the top stories today...the effects of collective wisdom so to speak.
A good article on the various aspects of the Digg story appears on CNN
http://tinyurl.com/kmkk2
This BBC news story, from about a year ago, reports the unpopular decision to tighten the posting and logging rules on Wikipedia, to eliminate false postings and edits by users
http://tinyurl.com/ygsdff
Blogs are proven to be biased simply because they are the personal opinions of an individual. How it affects the opinions of the collective is the matter of discussion. But then that discussion could be held for a host of traditional news networks and newspapers too.
So yes, there is that problem of letting things go out of hand. And yes, the problem does require review. But suggest that we change the spirit and ideology of this unique communication revolution that has emerged in the past half-decade, is not just wrong it’s almost ridiculous. The need for constant evolution is ever present. Things have to change as usual with people coming up with ideas to change this stream of communication to serve better quality information. And maybe one day when we do solve this freedom versus order debate for our beloved Internet, we may be able to bring the same concept of individual freedom within collective responsibility to our day to day life. If only things ever turned out that simple…
posted by Shefali | 9:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home