“Balanced concept” replaces UGC
Lauren Hogh writes about the concept of a balanced influence of users, editors and experts in the information Internet communities of the new generation.
It seems that there is a slow and fundamental shift in the distribution of power within the information communities. After an unbalanced and dishonest "empire of experts," we moved on to the same unbalanced and dishonest doctrine of "all users are equal . "
In the first case, communities were dominated by groups of people who were confident that they had all the necessary knowledge. Age, experience and “crusts” of diplomas were the conditions for moving up the stairs.
')
Then the users (we) regained their power: we created websites that became more and more authoritative and valuable due to the mathematical fact that millions of brains, logically, must surpass even the brightest experts. The number of publications, the respect of the community, the constant presence on the site - this is how the new kings were created.
Suddenly it turned out that being an expert is almost shameful. Expert judgment began to look like a thing of the past because it is by its nature undemocratic. It violates the equality that we all sought after many years of dissatisfaction.
Probably, we overdo it . Expelling the experts was not the solution. Together we are not able to replace them. A person who cuts violins all his life should have more power than I do when editing the Stradivari page on Wikipedia .
Balance is the solution. As usual.
And it starts to appear on the web. The most advanced communities are undoubtedly an act of balance between three groups of people:
* users , familiar and inconsistent "content generators" who need to scale the system to a meaningful size;
* team leaders who create community frameworks and incentives;
* experts who add credibility / trust to the entire system when they share their comprehensive knowledge from one or another part of the “long tail” of knowledge that is inaccessible to the general public.
For an example, see OhMyNews [one of the first “popular news” projects on the Internet that has become very popular in Korea - approx. trans.]. I met their international director, Jean K. Min. He said that the journalists (in my classification “team leaders” ) were an integral part of the community formed around users, because there was a need to “protect users from themselves” . Civilian reporters should not be allowed to publish anything without checking the facts. Because you publish false information - they will sue you! And to whom do civilian reporters turn to, if you need to clearly clarify a controversial issue? To the experts. These three roles are necessary to create the best quality information materials.
Look at the Bayosphere experiment. When Dan Gilmore analyzed the reasons for the failure of the project , he said that users needed “some direction and framework [framework]”. Again, users cannot be left with themselves, but must be forced to respect by setting up a set of rules. Control over them is in their best interest.
See Rue89 , the new French citizen journalism project. Their motto is “Your Information Revolution”, and their recipe is simple: Journalists, Experts, Users.
We are moving away from the utopia of "all users are equal" and approaching a more balanced, productive and viable era , where power is again divided. Only the distribution of roles has changed, and the roles themselves have remained the same in the information space.
Technological innovation does not have to destroy the establishment. It simply causes a rearrangement of forces. The healthy mechanism of our society ensures that power does not remain in the same hands for too long.
It seems that there is a slow and fundamental shift in the distribution of power within the information communities. After an unbalanced and dishonest "empire of experts," we moved on to the same unbalanced and dishonest doctrine of "all users are equal . "
In the first case, communities were dominated by groups of people who were confident that they had all the necessary knowledge. Age, experience and “crusts” of diplomas were the conditions for moving up the stairs.
')
Then the users (we) regained their power: we created websites that became more and more authoritative and valuable due to the mathematical fact that millions of brains, logically, must surpass even the brightest experts. The number of publications, the respect of the community, the constant presence on the site - this is how the new kings were created.
Suddenly it turned out that being an expert is almost shameful. Expert judgment began to look like a thing of the past because it is by its nature undemocratic. It violates the equality that we all sought after many years of dissatisfaction.
Probably, we overdo it . Expelling the experts was not the solution. Together we are not able to replace them. A person who cuts violins all his life should have more power than I do when editing the Stradivari page on Wikipedia .
Balance is the solution. As usual.
And it starts to appear on the web. The most advanced communities are undoubtedly an act of balance between three groups of people:
* users , familiar and inconsistent "content generators" who need to scale the system to a meaningful size;
* team leaders who create community frameworks and incentives;
* experts who add credibility / trust to the entire system when they share their comprehensive knowledge from one or another part of the “long tail” of knowledge that is inaccessible to the general public.
For an example, see OhMyNews [one of the first “popular news” projects on the Internet that has become very popular in Korea - approx. trans.]. I met their international director, Jean K. Min. He said that the journalists (in my classification “team leaders” ) were an integral part of the community formed around users, because there was a need to “protect users from themselves” . Civilian reporters should not be allowed to publish anything without checking the facts. Because you publish false information - they will sue you! And to whom do civilian reporters turn to, if you need to clearly clarify a controversial issue? To the experts. These three roles are necessary to create the best quality information materials.
Look at the Bayosphere experiment. When Dan Gilmore analyzed the reasons for the failure of the project , he said that users needed “some direction and framework [framework]”. Again, users cannot be left with themselves, but must be forced to respect by setting up a set of rules. Control over them is in their best interest.
See Rue89 , the new French citizen journalism project. Their motto is “Your Information Revolution”, and their recipe is simple: Journalists, Experts, Users.
We are moving away from the utopia of "all users are equal" and approaching a more balanced, productive and viable era , where power is again divided. Only the distribution of roles has changed, and the roles themselves have remained the same in the information space.
Technological innovation does not have to destroy the establishment. It simply causes a rearrangement of forces. The healthy mechanism of our society ensures that power does not remain in the same hands for too long.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/31028/
All Articles