Comments on: Is the Web as weak as its weakest link? http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/ About David Weinberger's book (May, 2007) and how we're pulling ourselves together now that we've blown ourselves to bits Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:37:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Ian Watson http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/comment-page-1/#comment-35597 Ian Watson Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:52:30 +0000 http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/#comment-35597 It's quite amusing to hear journalists rubbishing Wikipedia on the grounds that it contains errors. The traditional, and still highly favoured, source of information for many journalists is the cuttings file, ie cuttings from old newspapers, which are notoriously error-prone. It is not unusual to find a 'fact' recycled over and over because the original cutting got it wrong. It’s quite amusing to hear journalists rubbishing Wikipedia on the grounds that it contains errors. The traditional, and still highly favoured, source of information for many journalists is the cuttings file, ie cuttings from old newspapers, which are notoriously error-prone. It is not unusual to find a ‘fact’ recycled over and over because the original cutting got it wrong.

]]> By: jonathan bystedt http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/comment-page-1/#comment-32856 jonathan bystedt Fri, 02 Nov 2007 02:51:12 +0000 http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/#comment-32856 Isn't the real 'gatekeeper' of media, both new and old, public opinion factored over time? After all, the reason both Encyclopaedia Brittanica and Wikipedia exist is that people find them useful. The wheat is seperated from the chaff through a process of public debate and discourse, and it has always been this way. I see both sides in this debate having an exaggerated sense of their own importance. Really, there is nothing new under the sun... Isn’t the real ‘gatekeeper’ of media, both new and old, public opinion factored over time? After all, the reason both Encyclopaedia Brittanica and Wikipedia exist is that people find them useful. The wheat is seperated from the chaff through a process of public debate and discourse, and it has always been this way. I see both sides in this debate having an exaggerated sense of their own importance.

Really, there is nothing new under the sun…

]]> By: Self publishing versus journalists « Tech Explorer http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/comment-page-1/#comment-32702 Self publishing versus journalists « Tech Explorer Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:07:39 +0000 http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/#comment-32702 [...] publishing versus journalists November 1st, 2007 — techxplorer This morning I read this post by David Weinberger which in turn is talking about this post by Donnacha DeLong. The theme of [...] [...] publishing versus journalists November 1st, 2007 — techxplorer This morning I read this post by David Weinberger which in turn is talking about this post by Donnacha DeLong. The theme of [...]

]]> By: Konstruktors Notes http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/comment-page-1/#comment-32291 Konstruktors Notes Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:34:02 +0000 http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/#comment-32291 <strong>Finally Some Critical Writing About the Web</strong> After writing the previous article ‘What is Wrong with the Tech Journalism’ and thinking more about the portrayal of the Web by off/online journalists, I have finally found a few great articles that try to critically assess the otherwise hyped “u... Finally Some Critical Writing About the Web

After writing the previous article ‘What is Wrong with the Tech Journalism’ and thinking more about the portrayal of the Web by off/online journalists, I have finally found a few great articles that try to critically assess the otherwise hyped “u…

]]> By: Mark Murphy http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/comment-page-1/#comment-31953 Mark Murphy Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:20:41 +0000 http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/#comment-31953 Christine's "Popularity does not equal quality" comment kinda assumes there's *something* that *does* "equal quality". Donnacha DeLong thinks it is editors and publishers, but if that were the case, every book on Amazon would have five stars, JK Rowling wouldn't have had to fight to get the first Harry Potter book published, etc. Truth is, editors and publishers are as fallible as anyone and so make errors in judgment that affect the "quality" of the published works. Besides, what is "quality" for one person is not the same as "quality" for another person, so what editors and publishers think is "quality" will, at best, only be "quality" for some niche. Given enough editors and publishers, you can cover all the niches. All movements like "Web 2.0" are doing is increasing the number of editors and publishers, to cover more niches, even if some of those niches are rather tiny. Christine’s “Popularity does not equal quality” comment kinda assumes there’s *something* that *does* “equal quality”. Donnacha DeLong thinks it is editors and publishers, but if that were the case, every book on Amazon would have five stars, JK Rowling wouldn’t have had to fight to get the first Harry Potter book published, etc. Truth is, editors and publishers are as fallible as anyone and so make errors in judgment that affect the “quality” of the published works.

Besides, what is “quality” for one person is not the same as “quality” for another person, so what editors and publishers think is “quality” will, at best, only be “quality” for some niche. Given enough editors and publishers, you can cover all the niches. All movements like “Web 2.0″ are doing is increasing the number of editors and publishers, to cover more niches, even if some of those niches are rather tiny.

]]> By: David Weinberger http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/comment-page-1/#comment-31932 David Weinberger Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:56:48 +0000 http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/#comment-31932 Christine, you're right that the various dynamics don't guarantee quality emerges. But I don't think popularity is the only metric used. When I put someone on my blogroll, I'm not doing so because she's popular. And Wikipedia doesn't subject articles to popular vote; it expects rigorous argument and has an escalation procedure that does not involve assessing popularity at all. Google's Page Rank algorithm certainly weighs the popularity of a page, but that's not the only thing it considers. That's not to say that these processes always works or ever work, but it's not mere popularity that's being posed against the expertise of traditional authorities. Christine, you’re right that the various dynamics don’t guarantee quality emerges. But I don’t think popularity is the only metric used. When I put someone on my blogroll, I’m not doing so because she’s popular. And Wikipedia doesn’t subject articles to popular vote; it expects rigorous argument and has an escalation procedure that does not involve assessing popularity at all. Google’s Page Rank algorithm certainly weighs the popularity of a page, but that’s not the only thing it considers. That’s not to say that these processes always works or ever work, but it’s not mere popularity that’s being posed against the expertise of traditional authorities.

]]> By: Christine Madsen http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/comment-page-1/#comment-31900 Christine Madsen Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:27:42 +0000 http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2007/10/28/is-the-web-as-weak-as-its-weakest-link/#comment-31900 Hi David, Technically I would agree with your response, as Donnacha doesn't really address either of those points in his post, but I think that you are committing an equal fallacy. Popularity does not equal quality. Blogrolls are a pretty straightforward example of popularity. The "social dynamic and set of processes" found in Wikipedia is indeed complex, but it is not designed to move articles toward goodness, only toward popular consensus. [I am very tempted to insert something here about how the last US presidential election shows us that popular consensus is clearly not always a move toward goodness, but I will refrain.] Cheers, Christine Hi David,
Technically I would agree with your response, as Donnacha doesn’t really address either of those points in his post, but I think that you are committing an equal fallacy. Popularity does not equal quality. Blogrolls are a pretty straightforward example of popularity. The “social dynamic and set of processes” found in Wikipedia is indeed complex, but it is not designed to move articles toward goodness, only toward popular consensus. [I am very tempted to insert something here about how the last US presidential election shows us that popular consensus is clearly not always a move toward goodness, but I will refrain.]
Cheers,
Christine

]]>