Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy. - By Chris Wilson - Slate ... - The Diigo Meta page

• 29 Sep 09
  

  Ben Rimes

  Observing and comparing the "democratic" practices that constitute major web 2.0 sites.

  web2.0 wikipedia digg democracy

  • The same undemocratic underpinnings of Web 2.0 are on display

    at Digg.com. Digg is a social-bookmarking hub where people submit stories and rate others' submissions; the most popular links gravitate to the site's front page.

    • 

      Ben Rimes on 2009-09-29

      Interesting that the word "undemocratic" be used for the discription of the Web 2.0 underbelly. While true, the whiz-bang magic of scripts, bots, and other technological "gatekeepers" are constantly altering what flesh and blood individuals have contributed, the programs meant to serve as custodians are themselves written by humans. The tools that we choose to employ do not make the process of web 2.0 any more undemocratic, rather just that much easier to engage and maintain as relevant.
      
      The term democracy itself is difficult to define narrowly (http://www.democracy-building.info/definition-democracy.html). There is no clear determination of how a democracy should be run, but rather a system of democratic beliefs, values, and fundamental rights. Provided that any system meets the needs of a democratic group's values and freedoms (liberties), then one could argue that it is indeed a full fledged democracy. There is more importance on the groups' rules and processes possessing a quality of fluidity and malleability in order to meet a changing environment.
  • at Digg.com. Digg is a social-bookmarking hub where people submit stories and rate others' submissions; the most popular links gravitate to the site's front page.
  • 1 more annotations...
  • • While both sites effectively function as oligarchies, they are still democratic in one important sense. Digg and Wikipedia's elite users aren't chosen by a corporate board of directors or by divine right. They're the people who participate the most. Despite the fairy tales about the participatory culture of Web 2.0, direct democracy isn't feasible at the scale on which these sites operate. Still, it's curious to note that these sites seem to have the hierarchical structure of the old-guard institutions they've sought to supplant.

      • 

        Ben Rimes on 2009-09-29

        Perhaps the problem of disenfranchised and disengaged youth that exists in Europe and the U.S. today isn't that they aren't participating in a healthy way within our democracies, but rather they've found more engaging democracies to participate in online.
• 02 Sep 09
  

  Paulista TK
  • The same undemocratic underpinnings of Web 2.0 are on display at Digg.com. Digg is a social-bookmarking hub where people submit stories and rate others' submissions; the most popular links gravitate to the site's front page. The site's founders have never hidden that they use a "secret sauce"—a confidential algorithm that's tweaked regularly—to determine which submissions make it to the front page. Historically, this algorithm appears to have favored the site's most active participants. Last year, the top 100 Diggers submitted 44 percent of the site's top stories. In 2006, they were responsible for 56 percent.
  • Digg and Wikipedia's elite users aren't chosen by a corporate board of directors or by divine right. They're the people who participate the most.
• 15 Aug 09
  

  David Bill

  wikipedia web2.0 research highnoon tigerweb

• 07 Jan 09
  

  Jason Heppler

  wiki digitalhistory.readings technology

• 10 Sep 08
  

  Julie Starr

  digg wikipedia web2.0 slate democracy community crowdsourcing

• 31 Aug 08
  

  Doobii X
  • According to researchers in Palo Alto, 1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits.
  • Last year, the top 100 Diggers submitted 44 percent of the site's top stories. In 2006, they were responsible for 56 percent.
  • 2 more annotations...
  • • At both Digg and Wikipedia, small groups of users have outsized authority.
    • Digg and Wikipedia's elite users aren't chosen by a corporate board of directors or by divine right. They're the people who participate the most.
• 29 May 08
  

  Jeffrey McClurken

  wikipedia slate web2.0 technology article digg

• 18 Apr 08
  

  edtechtalk

  Are you elite techies trying to secretly control society? (-: ~ Debbie Schinker

  edtech web2.0 20080420 davelink

• 

  Jennifer Maddrell

  Are you elite techies trying to secretly control society? (-: ~ Debbie Schinker

  edtech web2.0 20080420 davelink

• 27 Mar 08
  

  federico Corno

  autorità crowd democrazia digg influenza mito oligarchia tecnologia wikipedia wisdom

• 21 Mar 08
  

  malin cantwell

  internutbildning web2.0 wikipedia

• 04 Mar 08
  

  Henk Nouwens

  web 2.0

• 

  Alexa K

  blog writ340blogs

  • Wikipedia-hater
  • 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.
  • 12 more annotations...
  • • f Web democracy, places built by millions of Web users who all act as writers, editors, and voters
    • undemocratic
    • social-bookmarking hub where people submit stories and rate others' submissions; the most popular links gravitate to the site's front page. The site's founders have never hidden that they use a "secret sauce"—a confidential algorithm that's tweaked
    • is largely run by 100 people.
    • Digg tweaked its secret sauce, top contributors noticed a decline in influence—fewer of their submissions became top stories.
    • Digg and Wikipedia, small groups of users have outsized authority
    • uthority is both organic and institutionalized.
    • elected site administrators
    • Digg, active users have more of a de facto authority over the site's goings-on
    • oligarchies
    • Digg and Wikipedia's elite users aren't chosen by a corporate board of directors or by divine right. They're the people who participate the most
    • eople who've made more than 10,000 edits add nearly twice as many words to Wikipedia as they delete. By contrast, those who've made fewer than 100 edits are the only group that deletes more words than it adds. A small number of people are writing the articles, it seems, while less-frequent users are given the tasks of error correction and typo fixing.
• 01 Mar 08
  

  Shanta Rohse

  "Digg and Wikipedia would do well to stop pretending they're operated by the many and start thinking of ways to rein in the power of the few."
  
  

  slate chris_wilson digg wikipedia helium wisdom_of_crowds linkingthinking networking delicious_import

• 29 Feb 08
  

  Chris Chesher

  Digital Research Publishing web production Web 2.0 elearning

  • 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.
• 28 Feb 08
  

  Arabica Robusta

  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.

  web2.0 wikipedia digg blog community culture internet journalism media democracy

• 27 Feb 08
  

  Mark Marino

  cyberdemocracy digg web2.0 wikipedia

• 

  M C

  Democracy social media

• 25 Feb 08
  

  glen gatin

  community politics society web2.0 wiki

• 

  Vance Stevens

  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.

  multiliteracies pp107tesol web2.0 webheads webheadsinaction writingmatrix

• 24 Feb 08
  

  cassiel cassiel

  web

  • chaperone
• 

  mamachika

  opinion wikipedia digg web2.0 democracy

• 

  Michel Roland

  digg web_2.0 wikipedia

  • This is not the wisdom of the crowd. This is the wisdom of the chaperones.
• 23 Feb 08
  

  Michel Bauwens

  This is not the wisdom of the crowd. This is the wisdom of the chaperones.

  Wikipedia Digg P2P-Governance P2P

• 

  Martin Carel
  • According to researchers in Palo Alto, 1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits.
  • At both Digg and Wikipedia, small groups of users have outsized authority. In the case of Wikipedia, this authority is both organic and institutionalized. A small segment of highly active users author the majority of the site's content; there are also elected site administrators who have the power to protect pages, block the IP addresses of problem users, and otherwise regulate Wikipedia's operations.
  • 1 more annotations...
  • • Despite the fairy tales about the participatory culture of Web 2.0, direct democracy isn't feasible at the scale on which these sites operate. Still, it's curious to note that these sites seem to have the hierarchical structure of the old-guard institutions they've sought to supplant.
• 

  Ed H Chi

  web2.0 social Wikipedia digg toread socialmedia crowdsourcing socialSoftware

• 22 Feb 08
  

  Jason K

  web2.0

Public Stiky Notes

• 
  Ben Rimes on 2009-09-29
  Interesting that the word "undemocratic" be used for the discription of the Web 2.0 underbelly. While true, the whiz-bang magic of scripts, bots, and other technological "gatekeepers" are constantly altering what flesh and blood individuals have contributed, the programs meant to serve as custodians are themselves written by humans. The tools that we choose to employ do not make the process of web 2.0 any more undemocratic, rather just that much easier to engage and maintain as relevant.
  
  The term democracy itself is difficult to define narrowly (http://www.democracy-building.info/definition-democracy.html). There is no clear determination of how a democracy should be run, but rather a system of democratic beliefs, values, and fundamental rights. Provided that any system meets the needs of a democratic group's values and freedoms (liberties), then one could argue that it is indeed a full fledged democracy. There is more importance on the groups' rules and processes possessing a quality of fluidity and malleability in order to meet a changing environment.
• 
  Ben Rimes on 2009-09-29
  Perhaps the problem of disenfranchised and disengaged youth that exists in Europe and the U.S. today isn't that they aren't participating in a healthy way within our democracies, but rather they've found more engaging democracies to participate in online.

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.