On Sunday, The Guardian’s David Smith offered a bit of a reality check on the Web 2.0 frenzy. I’ve always thought the hype around Web 2.0 reminded me a bit of the hype around the early dot.com days.
At the back of my mind, it has been worrying me, though: There is an almost unchecked, uncritical enthusiasm for Web 2.0 and citizen media. In fact, try being a critic: Web 2.0 critics are often shutdown as not “getting it” or being behind the times. There is fear-mongering talk of media being “replaced” and there is talk of a “revolution.” I think it’s important to approach the subject with intellectual honesty — being critical and rechecking assumptions.
But Web 2.0 has a gold rush feel to it at the moment. Most people jump on the Web 2.0 bandwagon for fear of being left out or left behind. It took about eight years for things to turn with dot.com. Things turned when the promises of the dot.com prophets did not materialize and became known as a “crash” as one dot.com entrepreneur after another failed over a two-year period.
Now, where are we? We know Web 2.0 is more an idea that encapsulates a new culture on the Web. (Web 2.0 really describes practices that have been around for years, but now is a concept that markets those practices more effectively for the mainstream, thanks to O’Reilly). But the concepts are useful and have practical application.
For me the idea of Wikipedia is utopian, yet it appears to be working. Or maybe it isn’t working because it has yet to stand the true test, which is the test of time. As more high-profile inaccuracies or acts of vandalism start appearing on Wikipedia over the years, like we have seen recently, maybe the tide will turn on the project and public opinion will turn.
Perhaps inaccurate information drawn from Wikipedia might lead to a high-profile blunder or calamity? Maybe Wikipedia will close its doors to the public and further retreat behind registration? Or maybe none of this will happen and the project will succeed, get stronger and be the seemingly-utopian realization of collective collaboration?
The Observer article cites Andrew Keen (read his blog) whose book The Cult of the Amateur accuses bloggers and other Web evangelists of destroying culture, ruining livelihoods and threatening to make consumers of new media regress into “digital narcissism.” The Observer article goes on to say:
“[Keen’s] book… has become a rallying point for dissenters with nagging doubts about the revolution of blogs, wikis, social networking sites and podcasts. Keen has been praised for applying the brakes to what seems to have become a runaway train: the idea that anyone can use technology to gain control of the media and change the world… Keen criticizes Web 2.0 sites such as Wikipedia for making it impossible to discern the important from the trivial.”
I believe we have to keep our eyes wide open. Citizen media will probably never “replace” traditional media. Organized, corporate structures with incentives (such as salaries) produce quality and get the best out of human beings. It’s worked for centuries. But also in the citizen media sphere: the pressure of social ties, and the idea of doing good and maintaining a reputation is also powerful in ensuring quality.
But I do however believe the two (traditional media and citizen media) will coexist as different information forms. As the Internet matures, there will be more blog aggregators, Googles, Technoratis and other tools which will be able to discern the authoritative from the trivial. As the Internet gets polluted with more and more rubbish we’ll need more systems to help us discern. Remember, in a global sense, the Internet is still elitist.
Editor’s note: On Apr. 23, Matthew Buckland published his intriguing interview with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. It’s worth a read, for context.
