The individual user has been king on the Internet, but the pendulum seems to be swinging back toward edited information vetted by professionals.
Comment: Just want to advertise my new book in the newsweek, please send me information as to how I can contact the person in charge: my email is ayim_aboagye_desmond@yahoo.com, do we have discount as members?
Comment: Thanks for your interesting article I just want someone at Newsweek to review my book or advertise my book in the Newsweek. Please have my email and post me information regarding this: that is what I should do ayim_aboagye_desmond@yahoo.com thank you.
Comment: We've been saying this for a while now at http://ghostpartner.blogspot.com/. Thanks for validating this Newsweek!
Comment: Further below I mentioned "wisdom of the language" -- apparently some of the most popular search engines find it difficult to find this article. If you are interested, you can see a (more/less unpolished) article at http://www.squidoo.com/finding
Comment: I have written extensively about irrelevant and IRREVERENT advertising is it is positioned on most TV spots... Advertisers don't mind throwing crappy content in your face at the most oddest of moments, such as a product for feminine itch, seconds after a romantic scene on a Soap drama, and a thousand other visual insults (complete with bad timing), darn near every 5 minutes 24/7, so I'm not quite sure about that 'Who wants to advertise next to crap?" statement... Advertising is made for impact and Impressions that might hopefully lead to SALES, and lots of it is "crappy ".
Comment: Two comments -
Re: no body wants to advertise next to crap, I actually think the highest click thru's and conversions happen when the ads are more relevant than the content, at least for search advertising.
Coverage will always be an issue with experts. My company, BooRah generates ratings and reviews similar to Zagat.
Zagat has coverage for about 1500 restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area but we have compiled ratings and correlated them our accuracy scores for all of food, service and ambiance for about 5000 restaurants in the Bay Area, a significantly larger coverage and it's all done using natural language processing technology. Nevertheless, both approaches have their deficiences. In fact, I like the fact that Mahalo provides top quality links for latest events including superbowl, ncaa etc.. faster and more relevant than any search engine.
Comment: In all actuality this is not about promoting your own personal company/website or comparing relevance to competitors it is about the topic of discussion. I personally have dozens of websites this is not the issue here. If an individual with a website is an owner/operator of a septic cleaning service and this particular site had tips on caring for your cesspool and adding to the longevity of your septic system. Google adsense would fill that site with more than willing ppc (pay per click) ads.. So in essence you are wrong there are many people lined up to advertise next to crap.
Comment: Sorry, I hit "enter" in mid thought....Anyway, re: Netflix. I really like that I can find out films liked by other people who liked my obscure "long tail" wierd new zealand sci-fi movie if I am in the mood for a similar film. I also like the fact that they don't bombard me with recommendations based on what I was interested in last week. In this case, my film might be too obscure for any experts to have reviewed so I must rely on the crowds. Anyway, the net net is that Experts have their place but they don't scale. They can't cover all ground. The
crowd can.
Comment: Why is this an either/or debate? Experts have their place. Crowds have their place. As a mom, I like the fact that Education.com consolidates for me a lot of expert advice. I also like the fact that there is user generated content and that search results are re-ranked according to crowd wisdom. On Netflixs, I like the fact that I can read Roger Ebert's critical review, but I also like the fact that I can figure out that people who happened to like my
Comment: Who says you have to be either "pro-expert" or "pro-crowd"? This reminds me of the rediculous "working mom" versus "stay at home mom" debate. Isn't it best to offer both? I want guidance and I want choice. Movie reviews are the perfect example. Yes, I care what Roger Ebert thinks, I also really want to be able to leverage crowd wisdom to dig into a particular genre I am interested right now. My context, my intent is what really counts.
Comment: There were a lot of "Experts" That said the world was flat, or we couldn't go to the moon...
Comment: Yeah, and the progeny of those 'Experts " are probably occupying jobs with good paychecks, while waiting for their moment to shine once more in the eyes of the public... The trusting, lazy, bored-out-of-their-skulls, public, that is....
Thanks for sharing that one, Mr Max... You've inspired me to write a blogpost about BlabberMouths That Said It Couldn't Be Done... Sure to give my readers a good Friday Laugh or two! :)
Comment: There were a lot of experts that said the world was flat, or that we couldn't fly, or go to the moon....
Comment: Truth:
The Worlwideweb is a level playing field for all regardless of the fact that they are novice/expert entrepreneur/conglomerate. It is a tool for global advancement and should never be dominated by one sector.
Comment: I am reminded of a story that mist of you might have heard of... If it had been written in stone that 'Expert" assessments and opinions were the only standard by which Human Beings could be properly guided to self-enrichment... Steven Jobs would never have happened. He was not a stellar student, to say the least, and his professors at Rose College absolutely dissed his performance as a student...
Suppose Steve Jobs had been sheepish enough to take their " authoritative" opinions to heart... There is a value within Free Thought ,that is only contained in Free Thought... It's called Genius, or more accurately, 'The Positive Actualization Of Free Will.." The overbearing dependence on 'Experts " , can 'Neuter " this feature in Humans... Just as we've grown accustomed to using our checkbooks to get things "fixed", instead of learning how to fix things for ourselves. The will to learn has been neutralized by the need for 'Convenience"...
Comment: Obama Nation...
Onions:bio good, metaphor poor. Rock and roll, better? Woodstock becomes American Idol. Guess you had to be there, or be square, at least in spirit. The Man always going try to keep a foot on the throat of anyone with a mind of their own, one way or another. All power to the people!
Comment: I am sure "experts" such as Tony Dokoupil, the Charlotte Beal's of the world, and other "public intellectuals" would like to see their brand of "knowledge and expertise reign." For me, an Internet where individuals learn to sift through popular and unpopular ideas, correct and incorrect information, or perspectives that challenge our senses and sensibilities seems like an arena for strengthening intellectual capacity and democratic thinking. The insidious nature of Mr. Dokoupil's presentation of this issue with selective perspectives taken from "experts" seems designed to show an even hand, a concern for the safety of the masses, when the underlying view seems more of a support for diminishing the democratic nature of the Internet and an attempt to rein in "dangerous" free thought. You know, one doesn't actually have to believe everything one reads. We shoud remember the years before the Internet when information was sanctioned as truthful only if if the major newsmedia consider it so and authors of books were only those that a select group of publishers would allow to be published. Now that a wider range of our society is beginning to find its voice and actually has the chance at an audience, "experts" begin to complain that their ideas are not being exclusively respected. Maybe these experts should get in line with the rest of us for the chance to be considered by our peers as worthy of being heard. To paraphrase the anti-paragon of democracy George W. Bush, "democracy's a beautiful thing." Get used to it.
Comment: Thank You,,,,,,,
I see another like minded individual seeking progress.
Comment: Here we go again the old school taking back control. But who is the modern day expert the employee who has worked in the same field for thirty years or the prision inmate with that law degree.How about that 10 year old kid that picks the best stocks on his one page website(still looking for that kid) times have changed and the reader will choose the expert of the future, tks Transitguru
Comment: A
Comment:
Technically the crowds wisdom is always at it's peak. It's peak grows expotentially unless hindered by moderation and regulation. In this current day and age the crowd is linked through the medium we use in the here and now (WWW.) .We are bridging the gap on sharing information faster than ever before.This momentum must not be stopped. Crowdcasting is a device used in the corporate sector to gain knowledge on consumers behavior.. Tivo is a crowdcasting service that logs your viewing habits and sells that information to advertising conglomerates for the determining factors of ad placements. Also you PAY for that service. As for education.com that seems like a good solution(top ten recommended answers) who is to say the judgement of the top ten is correct???This site is also funded by ad revenue(top name sponors) which may be the underlying reason they are a website. also articles are ranked by popularity .. Once again i believe the judgement of content should also be up to the individual user.
Comment: Calacanis said that "the wisdom of crowds has peaked." But isn't user-generated content the wisdom of each individual person? With so much content out there, there of course needs to be a way to sift through it all but instead of turning "experts" into the gatekeepers, some websites are using the wisdom of their crowds to recommend content to one another. Really, we're just starting to see the power of "the wisdom of crowds." Education.com is a good example of this because when you search for something on their site, you also get the community's top 10 recommended answers. Its cool and keeps content in the hands of the people who actually use it.
Comment: Fivemile is absolutely right...but the really big whammer is that Uncle Stupid is going to be waiting with his hands out. Another way to levy taxes on us ABOVE and beyond what we get taxed on already. And in two to five years, we'll all be paying an additional tax levy regardless WHETHER we use the Internet or not. After all, look at cable and satellite. We get taxed whether we watch it or not. The only way to avoid it is to stay off it.
hookup the hook up
Comment: In actuality this is all about cornering the market on ad revenue. This is just simply a last ditch effort by the failing mainstream media giants and experts to capitalize on the latest format.....
Media Formats..... First there was print.... Then there was radio.... Then Network Television.... Then Cable Television... Then Satttelite Television..... Currently The Worldwideweb. All of which were means of communication that were capitalized on with ad revenue. The WWW. is a multi billion dollar ad revenue generator with a broader reach than all mass media COMBINED....Working with an instantaneous simultaneity second to none... This is the new forefront for million dollar conglomerates to pioneer new capital ventures... Once again leaving the "individual" behind.....
Take a look to the right>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See the sponsored links... When will you die, register to vote for obama,,,,etc..etc.. how about the big principal financial group ad???? EVERYTIME YOU CLICK ON THOSE ADS NEWSWEEK GETS PAID.
Which is fine as long as people as individuals are afforded that same opportunity.
This is what it really boils down to folks..... Educate your Students/Children OPEN UP YOUR EYES.......
Comment: The expert initiated content is in the libraries of Federal, State and Local learning facilities not to mention private universities. This is where you gather the data for such projects. The worldwideweb is well,,, just that, a web, and therefore you must sort. Given the proper parameters for searching you can narrow it down to a pinpoint target. It is up to the individual to make judgement on the content. Yes i agree some content is not worthy of a single look. However it is your job as an educator/parent to make students/children available the option to learn how to differentiate what is taken in and how to evaluate the info they receive (web content or anything else for that matter) and make the proper judgements themselves based on fact. Once this mindset is put into motion the individual will grow and learn how to think independently. Independent thought and self reliance is the key for advancement given the individual has the mental capacity to do so.
I must say that in order to have a free thought sharing multi opioniated arena (world wide web). There should be no regulation by so called experts. The only way we will ever advance as a Global society is to build upon ideas, individual thought or opinions whether they be from experts or not. Even experts can gather information from non experts and build upon thier own individual ideas. Thus advancement is non hindered. I believe this is an exercise in elementary logic. Regulation is a product of Greed. Advancement is a product of NEED.
Comment: We must be ever vigilant against the type of 'Bullying" that those who would seek to gain control of our Internet would employ, if given a whiff of chance... The People must not allow The Web to fall into the hands of those think that they know 'What's good for us" ever again... The vast frontiers of Human Growth and Development must not be limited by a few degree-earning copy-writers, who quite possibly (Especially these days...) might have recieved all of their life lessons from a cheat-sheet and a rigged grade test...
Comment: There is room for both. How can we implicitly trust the professional in a society where certain companies do not pay their scientists for the work they do unless the results tell them what they want to hear? Some of us like to have the option of taking in different sorts of information and making up our own minds, balancing the voice of the expert with different voices of experience.
Comment: The expert initiated content is in the libraries of Federal, State and Local learning facilities not to mention private universities. This is where you gather the data for such projects. The worldwideweb is well,,, just that, a web, and therefore you must sort. Given the proper parameters for searching you can narrow it down to a pinpoint target. It is up to the individual to make judgement on the content. Yes i agree some content is not worthy of a single look. However it is your job as an educator/parent to make students/children available the option to learn how to differentiate what is taken in and how to evaluate the info they receive (web content or anything else for that matter) and make the proper judgements themselves based on fact. Once this mindset is put into motion the individual will grow and learn how to think independently. Independent thought and self reliance is the key for advancement given the individual has the mental capacity to do so.
I must say that in order to have a free thought sharing multi opioniated arena (world wide web). There should be no regulation by so called experts. The only way we will ever advance as a Global society is to build upon ideas, individual thought or opinions whether they be from experts or not. Even experts can gather information from non experts and build upon thier own individual ideas. Thus advancement is non hindered. I believe this is an exercise in elementary logic. Regulation is a product of Greed. Advancement is a product of NEED.
Comment: I think that the individual searching for reliable content will be grateful for search engines and websites that offer expert-initiated content. There is still a niche for every view, but it would be backed by research and expertise, rather than the whim of anyone with a keyboard and internet access. For those who want to continue to muck through all the garbage and decide for themselves which items are relevant and trustworthy, those venues will always be available. As an educator, I see a real need for web advancements that provide reliable resources for student researchers. "Wikipedia" is interesting, and even informative in many cases, but it is not a reliable source for information, and it offers no references for checking information. That does not stop children from consistently listing it as a source. Educators have to list this site as well as many others as "forbidden" for this very reason, when dealing with research-oriented assignments.
Comment: I must say that in order to have a free thought sharing multi opioniated arena (world wide web). There should be no regulation by so called experts. The only way we will ever advance as a Global society is to build upon ideas, individual thought or opinions whether they be from experts or not. Even experts can gather information from non experts and build upon thier own individual ideas. Thus advancement is non hindered. I believe this is an exercise in elementary logic. Regulation is a product of Greed. Advancement is a product of NEED. .
Comment: The move is on, couched as reasonable commericial positioning, to move free access in and out of the net or relegate it to as much of a backwater as possible, ; it should be quite clear that the nature of corporateness is to limit and control access; what we have is nothing less than an analoque to pre ;gutenberg days and post gutenberg accessiblity. we saw this model latest in the music / movie industry readction; the savior there was jobs/apple which although opening up the cotnet access also monetized it and cut off a natural progression to artist to consumer direct--thus ensuring much of the old middle man ethos. Yes to accurate fact presentation, no to limitation on opinion and knowledge. A.J. Leibling from the hoary old pas said freedom of the (internet) press is guatranteed onlyto those who have one" don't be surprised to see a divergig evolutionary path brouhght about by commerical considerations--one with rich content and very very fast and the other lmitied in cross platform functionality.
Comment: Apologies to peaceful.
I should clarify my ramble. By "non-expert" I mean those who pass along as fact little tid-bits without examining the content or validity of the information. Those who have gathered real information for a vested interest I include in the category of amatuer expert, and can trust their information. They ("we the people") can be as valuable a resource as an expert can.
Comment: As for "experts," what qualifies them as being experts? Some piece of paper from a college or university? Work experience? Not all of these people that society generally accepts as experts are truly experts. Remember: you can educate a moron, but all you end up with is an educated moron. And from my experience, anyone claiming to be an expert is anything but.
Comment: Precisely, Mr. History... The elimination of the skills of innate critical thinking( And judgement) by prospects... IS the target of most advertising... Posing 'Experts" alongside Products is an old marketing ploy, and it still works, In some ways... ( By the way, I am a guy)
Comment: The article didn't mention that one reason that one reason people may not trust an expert opinion is that the "expert" may have a hidden adenda or a vested interest that is not compatible with real objectivity. It seems to me that people on the net have to be info-consumer-minded regardless of whether the source is expert or Joe Average, because either one could be the "shil". For example, it seems to me that a "publisher's shil" (such as that cited in the article) could actually be called an "expert" in another context, and clearly the author of the book would be an expert on the book. The net is awash in spin doctors.
Comment: How about some critical thinking here? Automatically rejecting "experts" is no better than automatically accepting them. There are two kinds of fools in the world... people who believe everything they are told, and people who believe nothing they are told. Why do I get the sense that some of these people never actually read?
Comment: Agree with jsbulger.
patton and peaceful: agree that the internet is a great source of information and that not all experts have pure motivation in dispensing certain information. What's sad is that it depends on what peoples' ideological alliances are as to what expert they will believe. e.g peaceful states that the past 8 years have been full of mis-information, hmmm, I wonder what her opinion was during the previous 8 years? Must have been purely truthful?
Fact is that the internet is a tremendous source of mis-information and non-experts are often wrong. If you need information on a rare disease, would you trust an expert on the disease or some blogger who googled it. We should draw a differnece between expert information and expert opinion.
I am not discounting the information that can be gleemed from non-experts, I am saying that there is plenty of room for material edited by people who have studied under intellectual guidance and have years of real application experience (an expert). After all, it is the "World wide web" right? And everyone's input is included - even that of the expert - right? It is our duty to take the facts as presented and decide whose experience is more valuable and whose knowledge is least biased and store that info in our personal www - the neuro-network.
Best to seek out disagreeing experts. Yes they do disagree, it is what makes the world go 'round.
Comment: This is an attack on freedom of speech. When then founders of this country said freedom of speech they meant it, even though our constitution has been secretly molested over the past 8 years, no one has said a thing stand up for yourselves
Generation x'er atheist/republican/vegetarian.
Comment: Wishful thinking. If anything the controlled mainstream media (MSM) is becoming a joke. We...the independent free thinking masses ... are taking back control and greedy power brokered censorship corporations do not like it one bit. But when they refuse to publish meaningful material, the masses will bring it. BECAUSE WE CAN AND YOU CAN'T STOP US! MSM is losing its credibility...what little is left. So maybe just go back to writing about Paris or Brittney or maybe have another week long marathon on the life and death of Anna Nicole. I would just really love to hear more about it.
Comment: Wishful thinking. If anything the controlled mainstream media (MSM) is becoming a joke. We...the independent free thinking masses ... are taking back control and greedy power brokered censorship corporations do not like it one bit. But when they refuse to publish meaningful material, the masses will bring it. BECAUSE WE CAN AND YOU CAN'T STOP US! MSM is losing its credibility...what little is left. So maybe just go back to writing about Paris or Brittney or maybe have another week long marathon on the life and death of Anna Nicole. I would just really love to hear more about it.
Comment: Trying to re-establish Journalistic Elite-ism?
Naked Commercialism has laid bare all motives for providing "Experts " with a foothold on Web 2.0 or 3.0... Dissing The People is what led to the quick demise of young businesses, in the first place... Danger, Will Robinson!
Comment: Patton and peaceful: yes the internet is a great source of information and not all experts have pure motivation. But the internet is also a great source of misinformation and non-experts can have just as much of a distorted agenda as the expert. This is the problem. The key is you have to know that the information source is trustworthy. If you wanted to know more about some rare disease, would you trust an expert on that disease or some blogger who has googled it.
To search for the truth, best always to start with someone who knows the truth - an expert (someone who has studied the subject under intellectual guidance and years of application experience). I am not discounting the knowledge that can be gleemed from the non-expert, but I am saying that there is plenty of room for information edited by an expert. It is then your job to determine if the expert was politically or financially motivated and wether the expert left out the truth by seeking an opposing expert. Yes, experts disagree, it helps the world go 'round.
Comment: Just as data is not information, expertise is not wisdom. The heading of "vetted by professionals" clearly points to the commercial objectives at play here. Selling data and experts portends no other benefits to society than the profits to be made by the vendors. That we can trust.
Comment: www.toptenreviews.com
Expert review site
Comment: The internet provides an arena where two-way communication promotes healthy exchange of ideas and information. We can seek information, and then question the answers, debate the validity of those answers amongst ourselves, and see alternative perspectives. I bellieve the internet and its free exchange of information encourages the citizens to be more inquisitive about all subject matter, and to actively seek the truth. This is no small thing. Perhaps through the exercise of researching for ourselves to discover which information we will and will not trust, we will become more diligent as a nation in demanding the truth and not just accepting what the professionals ( sometimes professional misinformation distributors) hand out to us as fact.
Comment: You are certainly right about that, Patton!
Not all 'Experts" have the positive advancement of society as their altruistic goal... Some people are lead to think that just because the information comes from an 'Expert", that is what makes said info good and acceptable... NO, NO, NO... Many folks have jobs that require their expertise as 'Spinners" and 'Stretchers" of the truth or, more harshly, 'Direct Distributers Of Bovine Scatology" to the public. That's what they get PAID to do.
Comment: I think that all of this is a Great Idea. I am tired of sifting through thousands of pages of crap to find 4 pages of Gold. Levae the free thought, free speach to Myspace and it's bloggers. People need to be able to access real information, not gossip information like Wikipedia!!! To many times have people been mislead by someone's posting of some historic event that they heard from their brother's cousin's sister's girlfriend. I want information i can trust!!!!
Comment: I think that all of this is a great idea. I'm tired of trying to search for real information through a bunch of crap posted by some guy who over-exaggerates and extends the truth of real topics. Leave the whole free thought, free speach to Myspace. People need to be able to access real information, not gossip informantion like Wikipedia!!!
Comment: "Experts" you mean the people that try to spam me to by their products before I can view the so called "News" articles that were written by self proclaimed "experts"? NO THANKS.
Comment: I must say that in order to have a free thought sharing multi opioniated arena (world wide web). There should be no regulation by so called experts. The only way we will ever advance as a Global society is to build upon ideas, individual thought or opinions whether they be from experts or not. Even experts can gather information from non experts and build upon thier own individual ideas. Thus advancement is non hindered. I believe this is an exercise in elementary logic. Regulation is a product of Greed. Advancement is a product of NEED. Sorry for the last few posts they were incorrect maybe i should finish my coffee before posting maybe a proof read or two.
Comment: must say that in order to have a free thought sharing multi opioniated arena (world wide web). There should be no regulation by so called experts. The only way we will ever advance as a Global society is to build upon ideas, individual thought or opinions whether the be from experts or not. Even experts can gather information from non experts and build upon thier own individual ideas. Thus advancement is non hindered. I believe this is an exercise in elementary logic. Regulation is a product of greed.
Comment: must say that in order to have a free thought sharing multi opioniated arena (world wide web). There should be no regulation by so called experts. The only way we will ever advance as a Global society is to build upon ideas, individual thought or opinions whether the be from experts or not. Even experts can gather information from non experts and build upon thier own individual ideas. Thus advancement is non hindered. I believe this is an exercise in elementary logic. Regulation is a product of greed. Advancement is a product of NEED.
Comment: I must say that in order to have a free thought sharing multi opioniated arena (world wide web). There should be no regulation by so called experts. The only way we will ever advance as a Global society is to build upon ideas, individual thought or opinions whether the be from experts or not. Even experts can gather information from non experts and build upon thier own individual ideas. Thus advancement is non hindered. I believe this is an exercise in elementary logic. Regulation is a product of greed.
Comment: I'm going to say that with all the "Mis-Information " that been thrown up in the face of the public by the so-called 'Experts", (particularly during the last 8 years) I believe that there are going to be many issues for these newer formats to overcome... "We The Internet People " have made the amazing discovery that among ourselves, there are some very smart, very entertaining and caring folks, who often provide great content in some of our favorite places, and touch us in ways that we no longer expect from the so-called "Experts".
The very term implies a distance and differentiation that no longer is as popular as it once was.
Folks are not as likely to accept pre-packaged pablum like infant sheep. We are very much into doing our
own homework and writing about our discoveries and experiences. Sharing them with our peers, is the icing on the 'cookie", if you will...
As for Mr. Keen's "Cult Of The Amateur", it is my firm belief that it was the "Experts " that helped to create the atmosphere that he complains about...
My TV set has been turned off, and my 'News Fast" is in full swing. I now recieve what ever news and other information I should desire from the Internet. If I have a question that I can't resolve, I'll log on to my network, and ask a FRIEND.. and always recieve an excellent answer.
Comment: A sensible article, which draws a reasonable, and welcomed, conclusion. Everytime I see a CNN or MSNBC "blogosphere" segment, with bloggers being asked their opinions with the same reverence once reserved for legitimate journalists, I feel more than a bit uneasy.
The fact is that blogs, and most other user-generated web content, is essentially the same as flyers stapled to telephone poles, though on a much wider scale. Professional journalists can and will make mistakes, but they are far more trustworthy than what we have now at Wiki, on blogs, etc.
Comment: I'll counter that the problem with search and inaccurate information is less a problem of the search algorithms and more of a lack of participation by the experts themselves. Who know's more about flat screen TV's than perhaps a product manager at Sony? Yet where is this person online?
If the experts don't particpate in activities like blogging the vacuum is going to be filled with those on the periphery right?
Comment: There's a problem here -- you have not defined what you mean by "user". Are Sergey Brin and Larry Page "users"? Why or why not? Isn't the "Google" search engine SUPPOSED to be USING links? So who is the information PROVIDER? You need to think this through more clearly. And BTW: I agree with Esther Dyson that in the long run the wisdom of the language will be far more reliable than the wisdom of the crowds.
Comment: Futurist magazine covered this last month....
FUTURISTS FORECAST RISE OF WEB 3.0
The growing popularity of online user message boards and gossip Web sites, sometimes called Web 2.0, is changing business, education, and culture in surprising ways. In the January-February 2008 issue of THE FUTURIST magazine, http://www.wfs.org/Dec-janfiles/Futconjan-feb.htm, business trend-watcher Arnold Brown, Web entrepreneur Andrew Keen, and journalism professor Michael Bugeja look at how the participatory Web is altering society as it rapidly evolves.
Arnold Brown, chairman of the firm Edrich, Weiner, Brown, Inc. and a member of the World Future Society board of directors, sees user-run Web sites and message boards taking power away from celebrities, tastemakers, and what he calls ???influentials.???
Web 2.0 critic Andrew Keen, author the bestselling book The Cult of the Amateur and the founder of the popular Web site Audiocafe, argues to the contrary. http://www.wfs.org/Dec-janfiles/Keeninterview.htm ,
Too much user-generated, free content, he says, is threatening not only mainstream media???newspapers, magazines, and record and movie companies???but our very culture. He says that the often offensive nature of much anonymous, amateur content is creating a renewed interest in professional expertise and informed opinion online. Web 3.0, he says, is within reach.
???Third parties???gatekeepers???add value to all media,??? says Keen. ???They help produce much more truthful content. People will rediscover the value of expertise and authority figures who know what they???re talking about, so I hope that Web 3.0, when it arrives, will reflect something new. Rather than the empowerment of the amateur, Web 3.0 will show the resurgence of the professional. Having talked to a number of people who are building their next-generation Internet businesses around proven expertise, I???m more optimistic now than when I first wrote the book.???
Journalism professor Michael Bugeja takes a different view entirely, arguing that our obsession with online networks and digital communities???whether amateur or expert run???is working to the detriment of our real world relationships and interpersonal skills. ???The new technologies that now keep us constantly connected also keep us constantly distracted,??? he says. ???Educators know that wireless technology has disrupted the classroom, with students browsing (and even buying) online during lectures. However, the new challenge is the pervasive unwillingness to do anything about it.??? http://www.wfs.org/Dec-janfiles/Futureview_JF08.htm
Digital versions of Brown???s, Keen???s, and Bugeja???s articles can be obtained from the World Future Society Web site, www.wfs.org under FUTURIST back issue.. http://www.wfs.org/Dec-janfiles/Futconjan-feb.htm Learn more www.wfs.org/futurist.htm
Comment: What's really going on is that existing search engines don't provide very good tools for filtering and ranking content (http://whatmattersonline.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/user-generated-content-no-longer-king/). Their methods are simply too weak to really provide relevancy, much less rate the accuracy of the content. If search engines improve their algorhythms (perhaps by borrowing from corporate knowledge-management technology?, some of this conversations will die away. But right now, even industry-leading Google simply doesn't cut it from this standpoint.
Comment: What we really need is tools which do a better job of filtering user-generated content (http://whatmattersonline.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/user-generated-content-no-longer-king/). The search engines, as they currently exist, just aren't discriminating enough. Maybe we're talking about technology borrowed from corporate knowledge-management software?
Comment: Is this author really trying to conclude that people have a disdain of experts? What kind of experts are they talking about?
I can understand that people might be wanting better information than more digital junk; but, general disdain of experts since 1642? I don't think that's an easy thing to say. I fact, I have no idea whether there has been a general disdain of experts since 1642.
Comment: Don't pit the individual user against the expert. The real power comes when Individual users work in cooperation and collaboration with expert's at multiple levels.... combining the best of both worlds. A great demonstration of this is human-powered, physician-guided health search engine OrganizedWisdom (http://organizedwisdom.com). This site demonstrates the power of combining physicians with search experts with user-recommended links with the end-result being hand-crafted, high-quality search results that blow away Google's algorithmic results.
Comment: There are a number of things wrong with the Newsweek article titled: "Revenge of the Experts" - but it provides a really useful lens to look at the changes taking place in both Content and Search on the web. Here's my post on Always On that offers a response to this post: http://alwayson.goingon.com/permalink/post/24590
Perhaps most importantly, I agree with Tony Dokoupil's thesis, but strongly disagree with his conclusion. One of the things that traditional media has done is suggest to readers that the "Brand" is the expert. That Newsweek, or CBS or USA Today has created a series of filters and review processes that make their output more accurate and authoritative than the rising tide of bloggers, websites, and community curated sources (Wikipedia, Digg, Magnify, etc).
So, let's explore this - the author of this piece is Tony Dokoupil, whose credits I was not familiar with. So I did a quick review of his past few articles to see if I deemed his world view on the web credible. Here's what I found:
"Super Bowl, Super Bust", "The War We Forgot", "Sex and the Synagogue",
"Gratuitous Technology", "Forty-Year-Old Virgins"
So, needless to say - if Tony is deep on web trends and technology, it doesn't show in his reporting.
Conversely, Steven Levy - a tech reporter from Newsweek whose work I read and respect - wrote: "Invasion of the Web Amateurs"
Comment: it'll keep growing. i wrote a paper on a similar topic if you want to check it out rotio.blogspot.com
Comment: I know this article isn't necessarily about sites like youtube.com but check this guy out. 20 minute webisodes each month with full scale musical productions. Completely user generated on a tiny budget and not backed by any type of corporate sponsors! Its user generate content at its best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX8aFIpZ-v0
Comment: "Enter 'Paris hotels,' for instance, into Google, and the search engine returns 18 million pages from an array of obscure Web sites. Plug the same request into Mahalo and you get the 'Mahalo Top 7,' a list of big-name sites, including Frommer's, Fodor's and Lonely Planet."
Well, so much for the long tail.
Comment: "Enter 'Paris hotels,' for instance, into Google, and the search engine returns 18 million pages from an array of obscure Web sites. Plug the same request into Mahalo and you get the 'Mahalo Top 7,' a list of big-name sites, including Frommer's, Fodor's and Lonely Planet."
Well, so much for the long tail.
Comment: Every movement is subject to pendulum swings. The internet has been used to promote opinions and agendas disguised as "fact" and this has not been to the benefit of the average user or those using the internet for factual research. It has been particularly dangerous in health-related categories where blatantly incorrect information is useless and potentially harmful.
Now it might be swinging in the opposite direction (not that I have yet seen any evidence of it) and professionals in the applicable field are the ones to enter the information. I suspect that, in the end, what will happen is that "opinions" will need be labeled as opinions and "facts" will be labeled as facts (with the appropriate credentials for the person posting it).
Of course, news sources will always be a gray area in which "facts" are colored by the opinions and agendas of the contributors, but the public is pretty used to that in all media sources anyway.
Comment: Algorithm, user-gen, editors -- all serve an important role. That's why we believe in all three. Check out Brijit at http://www.brijit.com. Your world in 100 words.
Comment: IT's kind of telling that an article pronouncing the death of user generated info has a user generated discussion attached to it. That's the sort of in-your-face stupidity I've come to expect from the high and mighty mainstream media.
Comment: They sure do know more then us, but they are yet unable to get "six figures" from the net activity because of the "web 2.0 populism" and "unregulated internet". I hope something can be done with that, hopefully promoting sites that don't exist yet, look boring to even look at and / or promote only "big-name" sites will help, somehow.
"Web 2.0 populism will never be thrown entirely" - what a pity :) let's hope someday our children will live in a world where no "user-generated" "crap" will stain the internet.
Comment: Uh, Wazzon - your reply itself is "user-generated" "crap". What will your children think of that???
Comment: I didn't read all you wrote Newsweek. A bit trite what I did read..
Well, gotta go- I want to go learn something. Probably stop by wikipedia or google the blogs. Sorry- I'd contribute more here, but this is just the comment section for the hoi poloi non professionals. Maybe you should allow everyone to edit your articles. They could stand some improvement. Oops- I forgot. You folks know more than us.
Comment: Screw you. You're no expert. You didn't report this, but you crucified Obama.
2008
Clintons to face fraud trial
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator
Posted: February 19, 2008
11:27 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Peter Paul and President Clinton (Courtesy Hillcap.org)
While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.
At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons ??? Bill, Hillary and Chelsea ??? along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.
Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons' longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.
The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.
The Clintons it turns out were behind the NAFTA Canandian story. Don't be fooled like Ohi and Texas.
Comment: 2008
Clintons to face fraud trial
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator
Posted: February 19, 2008
11:27 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Peter Paul and President Clinton (Courtesy Hillcap.org)
While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.
At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons ??? Bill, Hillary and Chelsea ??? along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.
Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons' longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.
The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.
The Clintons it turns out were behind the NAFTA Canandian story. Don't be fooled like Ohi and Texas.
Comment: While there is a market for expertise, I have seen no such shift where it counts - not amongst those that pay, but amongst those that use.
Sounds like wishful thinking.
Comment: While there is a market for expertise, I have seen no such shift where it counts - not amongst those that pay, but amongst those that use.
Sounds like wishful thinking.
Comment: Sorry, Newsweek. Nice try, but there is no such mass clamor for what you'd like to see happen, which is regain the control and readership you've lost. Describing blogs as "blather" and "crap" doesn't help make your case, it only undermines you. We're not stupid. Trust is earned by being consistently right and truthful and courageously reporting on what's really important, not by being cowardly and looking the other way while our country is being raped and pillaged, which is why people no longer trust major news organizations like News-weak. We turn to news blogs because you don't report the news anymore. You're all entertainment companies now. And If these so-called experts on the Web are anything like the "experts" that get trotted out on cable news channels every day, I'll pass. Try again.
Comment: The article is fair, and I look forward to what experts can provide, but the content they provide may not be free like Wikipedia's is. It is better to pump in money for experts into Wikipedia, so free content can be improved, but no - that would antithetical to the goals of a commercial enterprise.
I think Jeffreydc's comment has a point. I think a belief is something that best makes sense in a Bayesian perspective, for those who know what that is.
Jason Calacanis is making an utter fool of himself by saying that the wisdom of the crowds has peaked. It is similar to saying that the golden age of space exploration is behind us. What has happened so far is only a trinket of what is to come. He is also guilty of needlessly using the buzzword Web 3.0, which is best left unused.
Finally, what's the point in mentioning the primitive opinions that John Cotton and Andrew Jackson held? It's vulgar.
Comment: The article is fair, and I look forward to what experts can provide, but the content they provide may not be free like Wikipedia's is. It is better to pump in money for experts into Wikipedia, so free content can be improved, but no - that would antithetical to the goals of a commercial enterprise.
I think Jeffreydc's comment has a point.
Jason Calacanis is making an utter fool of himself by saying that the wisdom of the crowds has peaked. It is similar to saying that the golden age of space exploration is behind us. What has happened so far is only a trinket of what is to come. He is also guilty of needlessly using the buzzword Web 3.0, which is best left unused.
Finally, what's the point in mentioning the primitive opinions that John Cotton and Andrew Jackson held? It's vulgar.
Comment: I guess the fear of "faulty information" exists everywhere except where it could lead into an unjustified war with no end in sight that leads to the deaths of thousands of Americans. Nice to see our priorities are straight. Don't want someone to read "misinformation" about Lindsey Lohan on Wikipedia...but getting it wrong about war, or "experts" at banks getting it wrong about lending and mortgages, no big deal; in fact , they're rewarded fro their "faulty information."
Comment: Not too long ago, all the "experts" assured us that bacteria could not live in our stomachs; that the sun was 66% iron; and that Piltdown Man was our ancestor. Oh, and that the Ice Age was coming!
Comment: Can't wait to see the "expert" opinions on the 2nd Amendment, abortion, evolution, Islam, global warming, and so on. Should be a bloodbath!
Comment: Everyone is an expert until someone smarter comes along. It's all relative. The only man in the room always has the right answer. It is in the measure of how we interpret and learn to discern that we will determine how truly educated we become.
Comment: Whatever the "experts" say or write, you have to check if there's any conflict of interest and bias.
Also, experts are not immune to pressure from boss and sponsor to tell lies.
Comment: "Experts" get it wrong all the time. Trust yourself, don't trust "experts".
Comment: Sage advice for those who need to go to court, have surgery, need tax help, have a broken-down car, or are in the middle of a plumbing emergency. Those experts -- bah, what do _they_ know?
Comment: Sage advice for those who need to go to court, have surgery, need their car repaired, or have a plumbing problem. Those experts -- bah, what do they know!?
Comment: As my husband is fond of saying, "You can educate a moron, but what do you end up with?: an educated moron.
Comment: A surgeon's error killed my mom, I got stabbed in the back my attorney (and the judge who drank coffee w/my ex-father-in-law), my husband helped the ASC certified mechanic figure out what was wrong with the car (because the computer was inconclusive & the new "experts" can't trouble shoot), and the plumber was wrong about what the problem was - we ended up digging the backyard up and fixing the problem ourselves.
But we should trust the experts? I don't think so.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
STRATEGIES Harmonix, creator of Rock Band and Guitar Hero, is changing videogames.
Sponsored by
|
CAMPAIGN 2008 John McCain's choice to manage the GOP convention this summer is lobbyist Doug Goodyear, whose firm once represented Burma's repressive regime.
Sponsored by
|
