Comments on: Re: The web is becoming a dictatorship of idiots – Part 2 http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2007/03/26/re-the-web-is-becoming-a-dictatorship-of-idiots-part-2/ because I don't believe in life before coffee... Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:44:36 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Lars http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2007/03/26/re-the-web-is-becoming-a-dictatorship-of-idiots-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-366874 Lars Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:59:01 +0000 http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2007/03/26/re-the-web-is-becoming-a-dictatorship-of-idiots-part-2/#comment-366874 I think the internet has always been a matter of trust. "Do I trust this or that article?" "Do I trust this or that web page". The most common example is the web page of the White House. There are several with www.whitehouse. but with a different ending. Which is right? Well, trust, more research on reliable sources. And self clean up in the communities. It IS really annoying to be copied on the internet, especially if there are people out here that are getting money for the information that is, in the beginning free. My belief, might be a naive but anyway, is that these people with reveal themselfs at the end of the day. No one will go to their site, user communities (that really meets IRL) can provide black lists of fraud oriented people. I think the internet has always been a matter of trust. “Do I trust this or that article?” “Do I trust this or that web page”. The most common example is the web page of the White House. There are several with http://www.whitehouse. but with a different ending.

Which is right?

Well, trust, more research on reliable sources. And self clean up in the communities. It IS really annoying to be copied on the internet, especially if there are people out here that are getting money for the information that is, in the beginning free.

My belief, might be a naive but anyway, is that these people with reveal themselfs at the end of the day. No one will go to their site, user communities (that really meets IRL) can provide black lists of fraud oriented people.

]]> By: Zach http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2007/03/26/re-the-web-is-becoming-a-dictatorship-of-idiots-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-133152 Zach Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:15:05 +0000 http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2007/03/26/re-the-web-is-becoming-a-dictatorship-of-idiots-part-2/#comment-133152 Burleson's perspective on this seems like the last throws of a dying media pissed that they have more to compete with. Until Google, Wikipedia, and blogs you would have to buy a book or hire a consultant to find out how something works or how to accomplish a task. If what you want to do is at all obscure or bleeding edge, good luck finding someone to help for free outside of blogs and message boards. If you wanted reviews, you had to pay for these too. Maybe in a newspaper, magazine, or trade journal. Now blogs provide tons of reviews. Sifting through these things can be a challenge, but the concept of popularity helps greatly. If someone has consistently written insightful or useful content, they get ranked higher. Perfect. I'll decide for myself if I agree... If instead we are talking about popular culture, Wikipedia beats all other resources hands down. Never before could you go to any site that was so well organized and generally accurate about so many potentially obscure topics. Comic books, actors, movies, books, music, etc. Finally, even for research topics, as you say, Wikipedia is a great starting point. Sure these aren't refereed sources like you may find at your local library or university library, but at least the initial source is there and free. Burleson’s perspective on this seems like the last throws of a dying media pissed that they have more to compete with. Until Google, Wikipedia, and blogs you would have to buy a book or hire a consultant to find out how something works or how to accomplish a task. If what you want to do is at all obscure or bleeding edge, good luck finding someone to help for free outside of blogs and message boards.

If you wanted reviews, you had to pay for these too. Maybe in a newspaper, magazine, or trade journal. Now blogs provide tons of reviews. Sifting through these things can be a challenge, but the concept of popularity helps greatly. If someone has consistently written insightful or useful content, they get ranked higher. Perfect. I’ll decide for myself if I agree…

If instead we are talking about popular culture, Wikipedia beats all other resources hands down. Never before could you go to any site that was so well organized and generally accurate about so many potentially obscure topics. Comic books, actors, movies, books, music, etc.

Finally, even for research topics, as you say, Wikipedia is a great starting point. Sure these aren’t refereed sources like you may find at your local library or university library, but at least the initial source is there and free.

]]> By: Gary http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2007/03/26/re-the-web-is-becoming-a-dictatorship-of-idiots-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-130024 Gary Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:38:03 +0000 http://www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2007/03/26/re-the-web-is-becoming-a-dictatorship-of-idiots-part-2/#comment-130024 One issue to throw into the pot is that even a credible source can produce information that, with the passage of time, becomes inaccurate or misleading. At a minimum all such information should be dated. It is better if there is a facility for errors/corrections to be incorporated into the information, either by attaching feedback directly to the information (as a simplified peer review mechanism) or by contacting the author to have corrections incorporated. The wikipedia model of anonymity plus overwriting (albeit recording history) was appropriate to encourage the initial volume of information. By now, moderation (at least in contentious categories) and named commentary would probably be better. As for the "verified credentials service", check out: http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/security/investigator/archives/can-i-vouch-for-you-11919 One issue to throw into the pot is that even a credible source can produce information that, with the passage of time, becomes inaccurate or misleading.
At a minimum all such information should be dated.
It is better if there is a facility for errors/corrections to be incorporated into the information, either by attaching feedback directly to the information (as a simplified peer review mechanism) or by contacting the author to have corrections incorporated.
The wikipedia model of anonymity plus overwriting (albeit recording history) was appropriate to encourage the initial volume of information. By now, moderation (at least in contentious categories) and named commentary would probably be better.
As for the “verified credentials service”, check out:
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/security/investigator/archives/can-i-vouch-for-you-11919

]]>