Monday, October 24, 2005

Jeff Jarvis gets it right

Link:
"He goes after the quality of two crappy Wikipedia entries and with them rejects the whole notion of amateurism. Except I could show him many articles in my local papers that are crappy. Does that negate the value of all newspaperdom and all journalists?"
Interesting article on Web 2.0 and the evolving relationship between companies and the customers they serve. Ultimately, the internet will enhance our lives because more information is better -- for everybody; buyers, sellers, producers, consumers, creators, companies , individuals, politicians, PACs, everyone -- than less.

2 comments:

ADevoe said...

I can see both points of view on this. If there are no safe-guards on information accuracy, even on the websites that openly advertise user-based info, then I foresee a degredation of common knowledge and learning. Yes, sharing is good, and the more information the better, but shouldn't we as a global web-based community install some basic safeguards on information accuracy? That's what gets me..As a journalist, accuracy (in theory:) is our first concern. Facts are checked and re-checked, and usually multiple sources are utilized. This is the other side of the coin--intuition councils the web browser to use more than one source of information, thus the less accurate information gets diluted with more accurate. From this viewpoint, a great flooding of user-based info would be ideal, so the less-informed are drowned out by the more-informed. I'm undecided on this...It's all subjective anyway. We take what the authors of the published encyclopedias feed us without questions, but what are their credentials, and why do we believe their sources over any of ours? Then I think, who really creates language is contemporary culture, and if contemporary culture is the web, then the web becomes the creator of reality (as language is symbol, and symbols are how we relate to reality).

J. Willard Curtis said...

The principle that makes markets efficient applies well to information. Let competition exist for ideas,news, opinion, and a free market will efficiently evaluate the value (or accuracy/insight/truth) of the information. Especially when software and makes it trivially easy to rate ideas or comment about ideas -- this reduces the economic "friction", allowing quicker convergence to high-quality ideas.