Do you honestly think this Hell's Angels/ Pissed Off Bastards analogy will hold up??
I understand a lot of people are sheep and are just herded through life, but does this really happen in the digital world too?? Apparently so and a good example or the best example of that is Wikipedia. Of which I know hardly anyone ever corrects. In my line of work I see it used as a last-minute reference/ resource site, which has proved to work in the past, however will horribly embarrass you if your facts are twisted in that class presentation.
I generally feel that most people are scared to alter content, feeling insecure or incompetent on the subject matter, which is usually why they are researching it on the wiki site in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI see your point, but keep in mind that the 1% means that 1 out of 100 visitors will contribute on that particular site. It doesn't necessarily mean that the other 99% don't contribute content on the internet, just that they may choose to devote their time doing so elsewhere. (I'm not suggesting that the all of the 99% are contributers, just that some of them might be contributing elsewhere).
ReplyDeleteAnother point is that its human nature for us to take in information faster and easier than we produce it. For example, on any given day that i find myself very board with a lot of free time, i could easily blow through 100 videos on youtube in just a few hours. however, if i were to try create and upload an equal amount of content (videos), it would take me weeks if not months. Even then, I would only be putting out a 50/50 ration (intake/output). My point is this, with all the information that we absorb while exploring the internet, it would be impossible to turn around and create and equal amount of content. I don't think we're sheep, we just don't have the time/energy to add content to each of the dozens of sites we visit each day. We're human.
On the other hand, i will say that even though i don't see eye to eye with you on this matter, it was a point of view that i hadn't considered before and i found it really interesting to think about.
Also, there are a handful of these mini-experiments floating around the web regarding Wikipedia's response time to misinformation. I'm not sure how scientifically sound they are, but I think their worth looking at.
ReplyDeleteOne example:
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/09/11/48-hours-on-wikipedia/