Monthly Archives :

November 2005

The identity of the blogosphere
150 150 eriks

I read an article today about teenagers and blogs. In the short article some figures are presented on the differences between the blogging by youths and adults. Only one out of 14 adults is writing blogs, while there is one out of five youths writing. Even more interesting these figures become for the reading of blogs. Furthermore is one out of four adults reading blogs online, but almost four out of ten youths are reading blogs. That is in itself interesting, yet not surprising as youths seems to be more adaptable to new techniques, which another article partly addresses.

There are however another result presented in the article that is more interesting considering there has been a lot of buzz around the blogosphere and then especially questions like What is a blog? How should we blog? The nature of impact by blogging has been discussed a lot, and especially the movement of open source journalism have emphasized the political effect of blogging. It however seems like the youths mainly use the blogging to keep in touch with each other and communicate, which might not be that surprising. Even if the social effect is not the dominating part of blogging it surely is a major part of it.

That makes me wonder if it is not so that the majority of the blogs really are “social blogs”, primarily used in the sense of online diaries, and not for the purpose of ‘marketing’ political ideas, at least not directly. Maybe the blogs are more beginning to take the form of small social communities, bond together by the people that reads and discuss blogs. Thus it seems and partly based on the article mentioned, that the blogs are not part of the new corporate blogging sphere nor part of the open source journalism such as Instapundit. That raises a provocative question without any answer from me…

Is the blogosphere really the major ‘threath’ to the Big Media that everybody says it is?

  • eriks
  • 0

Reflections on Web 2.0…
150 150 eriks

I read a blog by Nicholas Carr about the amorality of Web 2.0 with the focus on Wikipedia hype. I decided to write a blog with some reflections on it. Please read it for a full discussion of the problem. Do not get me wrong, I truly believe in the power of the users and applaud the new Web 2.0 movement. However is it free from complexity? I think everything cooks down to if we are ready for it or not. Unfortunately I at present time do not think we as humanity on the whole are fully ready yet. I however could be convinced…

Technology is a tool, nothing else. We should never forget the purpose of technology is to help us, not the technology in itself. If we want to save (or at least change the world), we have to do it ourselves, but probably with the help of technology. Yet technology in itself actually does very little, which is one component of the complexity. Another component is that "technicians" always have to reflect on the awareness and readiness of the users to be exposed of new technology of the users that we develop these new technologies for. That is the problem lies in us as well as the new technologies.

Before we can assure that we are ready to handle the new technology and we have adjusted the technology so that it reflects how we work, the ultimate vision will not be fulfilled. We are getting there, and it is the right direction to go as we are then going back the read-and-write web again as it goes back to what Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues intended from the beginning..

Only time will tell if Web 2.0 is the "salvation of the problems of the web", but I think we cannot be totally blind to the fact that it is much easier to destroy than to create, but I also know as the telling goes: “Rome was not built in a day…"  Nevertheless, I am truly excited to see what happens…

I love rocky rides, so count me in!

  • eriks
  • 0

Some reflections on the Wikipedia
150 150 eriks

I read a blog by Nichoals Carr on the amorality of the Web 2.0. What is a bit scary these days is the unconditional trust people put on system like the Wikipedia and Delicious. Putting the full power in the hands of the users is not complex free, as we really have to trust all the users. Do not get me wrong, I truly believe in the power of the users and applaud the new movement on the web to really make it a read-and-write again as it was the true intentions by Tim Berners-Lee from the beginning.

Basically, technology is a tool, nothing else. If we want to save or at least change the world, we have to do it ourselves, but probably by the help of technology. Technology in itself actually does very little. This is one component of the complexity. Another component is that technicians always have to reflect on the awareness and readiness to exposure of new technology of the users that we develop these new technologies for. The problem is as much in us as well as it is in the new technologies.

Personally, I am a true believer of technology and think there might be a way to go to really make a difference, but as Nicholas Carr is saying in his blog: "The Internet had transformed many things, but it had not transformed us. We were the same as ever." This is an essential statement that tends to get lost when people are discussing new technologies. We have to be ready for it and able to handle them. The sad part is that the absolute majority has to or else we (might) end up loosing.

I will use the wiki and especially the flagship Wikipedia as a base for the discussion. Some say we should not compare the Wikipedia to Encyclopaedia Britannica clearly haven’t understood the true intentions of them. Wikipedia should be compared to Encyclopaedia Britannica by all means, as it is the true competitor both as to content and the number of entries.

The number of entries is never an argument as information never should be about quantity but about quality. Of course the entries in Wikipedia is much more alive and can be updated all the time, but can we trust the information in it? What happens to the information if somebody enters incorrect or even false information? The common answer is that it will be corrected rapidly, but is that really the case… always. What happens during the period in between?

Let us take a look a a specific case. Let’s say a student seeks information about something and founds the entry at the Wikipedia. The essay is due tomorrow and therefore he or she cannot check all the trackbacks of the changes, and therefore relies on the information to be correct. Whos problem is this? I say this is ours, as we surely can trust Encyclopaedia Britannica more. Simply by the entries are written by experts, and reviewed by experts. Are they right or wrong? Who knows, but the trust lies in this fact. All the entries inside are also created by the same methodology and therefore the whole encyclopaedia is more likely to be trusted.

Especially wikis all rely on the trust to them, and personally I love wikis as they are excellent for working in groups and correcting each other’s mistakes. (Actually this site is built on the combination of a wiki and a blog) Yet wikis really depend on the good in people. If anybody can change it, anybody can destroy or mess with it. Sad, but true. Again, I am a strong believer in the power of and the good in the people. However I still believe there are dangers with the complete and ultimate freedom, by which I have not at all said we should not have the freedom that Web 2.0 represent. We however should not put to much trust into it as part of the problem lies within ourselves.

Before we can assure that we are ready to handle the new technology and we have adjusted the technology so that it reflects how we work, the ultimate vision will not be fulfilled. We are getting there, but the Web 2.0 is still far from free of complexity.

I want this to happen, but will Web 2.0 change this. Time will tell, but I think we cannot be blind to the fact that it is much easier to destroy than to create. Of course we should start, but as the telling goes: “Rome was not built in a day…” Nevertheless, I am truly excited to see what happens…

I love rocky rides, so count me in!

  • eriks
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2