Web 2.0 Cracks Start to Show
By Xeni Jardin
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,69366,00.html
02:00 AM Oct. 27, 2005 PT
Spam, scams and scatterbrains -- the same problems that plagued the old
internet are cropping up again in a new wave of technologies known
collectively as Web 2.0.
But this time around, proponents say Web 2.0 has been better engineered to
withstand the troubles that wrecked Usenet, BBSes and free e-mail.
The cycle is so predictable, it's almost a natural law: Every new internet
movement popular enough to generate buzz also generates a backlash.
This time, the debate revolves around the cracks that are starting to appear
in Web 2.0, a term coined by O'Reilly Media Vice President Dale Dougherty to
describe a post-dot-com generation of sites and services that use the web as
a platform -- things like Flickr, BitTorrent, tagging and RSS syndication.
While there's no strict agreement on exactly what Web 2.0 is, much of it
involves public participation and contributions from the commons.
Web 2.0 is very open, but all that openness has its downside: When you
invite the whole world to your party, inevitably someone pees in the beer.
These days, peed-in beer is everywhere. Blogs begat splogs -- junk diaries
filled with keyword-rich text to lure traffic for ad revenue.
Google's PageRank is unfairly skewed by profit-driven search engine
optimizers. And experiments in participatory media attract goatses as
quickly as they do legitimate entries, like the Los Angeles Times'
experimental wiki, which was pulled after it was defaced.
Earlier tech innovations -- Usenet, BBSes, free e-mail systems, even the
open-source software movement -- have long faced similar challenges. And
many have buckled under the pressure.
Some of the harshest Web 2.0 criticism has been directed at Wikipedia, the
celebrated online encyclopedia that invites anyone and everyone to become an
editor. Though often good, Wikipedia is of uneven quality and has its share
of bogus entries.
"A lot of participatory media is mediocre," blogger and journalist Nicholas
Carr told Wired News.
In a widely read online essay, "The Amorality of Web 2.0," Carr slammed
overeager Web 2.0 proponents as hyper-hyped.
Citing two particularly error-ridden entries on Bill Gates and Jane Fonda,
Carr described Wikipedia's contents as "unreliable," "slipshod" and
sometimes "appalling."
"The promoters of Web 2.0 venerate the amateur and distrust the
professional," wrote Carr. "We see it in their unalloyed praise of
Wikipedia, and we see it in their worship of open-source software and myriad
other examples of democratic creativity."
Speaking to Wired News, Carr lamented the long, slow decline of
professionally produced media, like good old-fashioned newspapers.
"Online, free media is one of the contributing factors to the shrinking
circulation of good newspapers," he said. "Now, traditional media is
shifting away from large investments in bureaus and hard reporting, and
towards cheaper content and opinion-making. It's hard for me to imagine
participatory media devoting investments to hard, investigative or overseas
reporting. The healthiest scenario would be one in which both kinds of media
thrive."
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales acknowledged the online encyclopedia faces
challenges, but argued there are several fixes in the works that should
address quality and reliability.
"Our average quality is high, but it's uneven," he admitted. "We know there
are areas where we don't do the job we should, and others where Encyclopedia
Britannica can't touch us."
Wales said Wikipedia is planning a system through which completed articles
would be tagged as having been reviewed by a group of editors, just as
open-source software projects are reviewed and "stamped" as stable.
"I realize our processes are counterintuitive to people who aren't
involved," he said. "But in the future, someone's going to look at an
article on Britannica and say, 'Wait -- this was written by one person and
only three people reviewed it? Whoah! How can I possibly trust that? I
demand rigorous community review.'"
Tech publisher Tim O'Reilly, whose media empire was built on the forces of
community creativity, said Web 2.0 might be suffering from growing pains,
but its philosophy is sound.
"Wikipedia may have its problems, but the output of traditional media can be
pretty crappy too," he said. "Fox News managed to persuade much of America
that we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, didn't they?"
The problems of Web 2.0 may have more to do with human nature, and less with
the qualities of bottom-up, online media. After all, the postal system has
junk mail, the phone system has 419 scams and telemarketers, and stock
markets constantly attract cons.
Not all Web 2.0 endeavors are wracked with problems. Take the online
photo-sharing service Flickr, which, despite its open nature and robust
membership growth, has so far remained relatively parasite-resistant.
Co-founder Stewart Butterfield said the key with his system is to ensure
that it remains easier to fix glitches than it is to create them.
"With e-mail, spam is much easier to generate than it is to mitigate,"
Butterfield said. "You can describe Flickr as open, but it's closed in the
sense that to contribute photos, you must create an account in the system,
and activity is authenticated."
On Flickr, misbehavers still abound, but the system can easily be righted.
Recently, an outbreak of "get a free Apple iPod!" spam images ("spimages"?)
made its way onto the network.
"It took us one second to get rid of hundreds of them," Butterfield said. "A
lot less time than it took the spammers to generate and insert them."
Of course, Butterfield acknowledged that mischief-makers likely will come up
with new ways to game the system for profit or evil snickers.
"People try to game Flickr all the time, because the same qualities that
make the system good -- for instance, how easy it is to add metadata -- can
become vulnerabilities," Butterfield said. "But we're aware, and prepared."
End of story
You are a subscribed member of the infowarrior list. Visit
www.infowarrior.org for list information or to unsubscribe. This message
may be redistributed freely in its entirety. Any and all copyrights
appearing in list messages are maintained by their respective owners.
