How Habrahabr overcame all

Recently, completely incomprehensible voices have been heard : Habrahabr is a site where everyone is only engaged in copying information from other information resources. Let's analyze, is it really?
Take for example a small note on the Reuters site “Participation on Web 2.0 sites remains weak” and follow the translation history of this note in runet.
So, on April 17, 2007, Eric Auchard published an article entitled “User participation in creating Web 2.0 sites remains insignificant.” The article mainly contained statistical data: only 0.16% of YouTube users upload videos, 4.6% of Wikipedia users form the content of the encyclopedia, and the growth of users of Web2.0 projects was 668% in the last two years.

April 18, 2007 translation of the article appeared in the Russian segment of the Internet on the pages of Habrakhabr (correct me if it appeared anywhere in the Internet before this) - “The number of creative people remains miserable” by authorship of the respected Anatoly Alizar alizar , a finalist in the “journalist of the year” nomination on the rotor 2007 . The translation contained:
1. Statistical information from the original article;
2. Sensible provoking conclusions, the opinion of the author-translator:

Apparently, the “one percent rule” was equally relevant in the era of web forums ten years ago and in the “fidosh” era for twenty years. By itself, Web 2.0, it turns out, does not change anything in the creativity of people.

3. 70 comments, in fact, are a continuation of the article - with a discussion of the published information. They generated new ideas:

Imagine if at least 5% start writing and posting - there will be a lot of repetition!

... the same rule (1–9–90) can be applied to hired labor in a company: 1 person. earns money, 9 - they help him, and 90 - they fool around. :)

The article ended with a link to the original, after which I was able to evaluate the content of the text on the Reuters website. In general, for me personally, the material seemed important, I added it to Favorites (both Russian and English versions) in order to use it in the future.

Now note: April 19, 2007 translation of the note appears on one of the most popular computer news resources cnews.ru. The translation is author's, but, unfortunately, after reading the note, one can agree with the opinion of the commentators: “The authors are obviously not okay with the logic.” Please note: this can not be said about the original article and the Habré translation. More importantly, cnews does not contain a link to the source of the article (at the time of the publication of the topic that you are currently reading), that is, this “analytical material” is, in fact, a rough copy of someone else’s text without reference to the original.

And then it went: April 20 - techlabs , “Theory of Web 2.0 is unpromising,” with the beginning “According to the portal Cnews ...” and a link to the “original” material cnews. April 20 and 22 - blogs (also noting the strangeness of an article on cnews) here , here and others , all with links to cnews.
')
Findings:

1. Copying other people's materials is common on the Internet everywhere (hyperlinks, copy-peysting concentrate is the basis of the web), here one case out of millions is considered. The recipe for the preparation of the “Author's Analytical Material”, in order not to become some kind of “there web-two-zero-where-users-copy-paste-all-in-the-world-a-themselves-do-nothing-don't-do” (hello yourself, you know to whom) is simple: reflect a little on the news in English, translate, add your opinion and (most importantly!) forget about the link to the original.

2. What happened - in its own way is paradoxical and unique: an article with conclusions about the failure of resources to work with user-generated content was first published in Russian in Habrahabr, a resource in which all news, reviews, materials are formed by users themselves. And then it was picked up by a commercial news resource, where people get real money for their work, not virtual points, no reference to the source, and, in general, distorted. Thus, the answer was given to the question about the real value of resources with user materials.

3. The fundamental difference between the concept of Web 2.0 and everything that was previously, in my opinion, is not at all in technology, cross-presentation or graphomania. It is in what happened that there is a difference: users independently, most often free of charge and together, create something that no one had time to create (even if it will be a good fresh translation indicating the source or just a video of a cat) - and produce the light is thus quite high-quality and popular content. This also implies that, for example, at Habré everyone can discuss the news, text, video - and thus produce new ideas, opinions, news. The distinction of the original concept of Habr from the usual forum is not rude, respects the opinion of the interlocutor, expressed, as a rule, in essence and with a smart sense of humor, thus the process of producing and receiving new information occurs much more efficiently, with a decrease in pseudo-information noise and without flowing into the familiar and blogging squabbles.
And judging by what happened and what is happening every day - Web2.0 projects with a similar ideology and convenient implementation have a great future.