International Law

The myth of Web 2.0 democracy

In a piece for Slate, Chris Wilson breaks down the myth of Web 2.0 democracy:

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.

Social-media sites like Wikipedia and Digg are celebrated as shining examples of Web democracy, places built by millions of Web users who all act as writers, editors, and voters. In reality, a small number of people are running the show. According to researchers in Palo Alto, 1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits. The site also deploys bots?supervised by a special caste of devoted users?that help standardize format, prevent vandalism, and root out folks who flood the site with obscenities. This is not the wisdom of the crowd. This is the wisdom of the chaperones.

The same undemocratic underpinnings of Web 2.0 are on display at Digg.com ...

Read more here.

Full post as published by Freedom to Differ on February 25, 2008 (boomark / email).