Read Reid's Blog

An article from Slate caught my eye today. So before you read this blog post, make sure you do your homework and read “The Wisdom of the Chaperones: Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 Democracy”

Did you read it? Good.

I agree with the initial facts of the article, but not the author’s interpretation. Wilson points out that Wikipedia now stands up to Encyclopedia Brittanica in terms of accuracy and that both Wikipedia and Digg claim to be testaments to Web democracy, where millions of people help build and create user-generate content. Yet, I was surprised to learn that 1% of Wikipedia users are responsible for 50% of its edits and that the top 100 Digg users were responsible 44% of the site’s content last year. Interesting? I think so.

But, Wilson is overly critical of with the power site administrators for Wikipedia wield – they have the ability to delete IP addresses of problem users and protect pages. Same with Digg, where the most active users have more authority of the site’s content. It’s not the Wisdom of the Crowds, but rather the “Wisdom of the Chaperones” that runs these sites. While some other sites like Slashdot and Helium do a much better job at achieving web democracy, Wilson ends the article by writing that “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.”

A comment by Xando nicely summed up my feelings on the article:

“If Wikipedia isn’t “democratic”, then the U.S. isn’t really democratic either. After all, I don’t get to vote on federal laws–an elite group of Senators and Representatives do. I suspect the author is misapprehending the true nature of the “wisdom of crowds.” It’s not about some idealized democratic standard where everyone gets a vote. It’s about establishing an effective system of aggregating large numbers of small bits of data, not any sort of moralistic dedication to “democratic principles.”

For me, it’s all about participation in democracy. With a site like Wikipedia, I could choose to be one of the ‘elite’ who spends a lot of time editing and writing entries, but truth be told, I’m not really that interested. Given the high quality content I find on Wikipedia, I’m okay with not being peeved enough to edit an atricle. And I bet the 99% who use Wikipedia but don’t edit it feel the same way. But, are they not participating in Web 2.0? Hardly – a site like Wikipedia primarily exists for its users, and the millions of users who vote with their searches and clicks is the kind of participation that helps craft the content of Wikipedia. Sure, each site has a small core of devoted individuals who volunteer their time to edit and produce content, but those people are bound to their audience, and you can bet that if the quality and usefulness of what Wikipedia or Digg displays goes downhill, users will also leave. Just think about how much spam could be placed on a site like Wikipedia if its admins did not have the power to delete bad IP addresses. In a way, their existence helps protect a democratic web. So I’m okay with letting some ‘elite’ Wikipedia and Digg members drive the overall direction of the site. Both sites are not the myth of Web 2.0, but rather, in my opinion, its epitome.