Slate's Bizbox
technology: The future and what to do about it.

The Wisdom of the ChaperonesDigg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy.

By Chris Wilson
Posted Friday, Feb. 22, 2008, at 6:11 PM ET

(Continued from page 1)

This isn't the kind of people-working-together image that Digg and Wikipedia promote. Of course, Wikipedia requires some level of administration—otherwise, the site would crash under the weight of additions and deletions to the George W. Bush page. But that doesn't explain the kind of territorialism—the authorial domination by 1 percent of contributors—on the site's pages. Is this a necessary artifact of operating an open-access site? Or is it possible to build a clearinghouse for high-quality, user-generated content without giving too much power to elite users and secret sauces?

The moderation system at the tech blog Slashdot is perhaps the best example on the Web of a middle way. Slashdot, which draws on links submitted by readers, ordains active contributors with limited power to regulate comments and contributions from other users. Compared with Wikipedia, which requires supreme devotion from its smaller core of administrators, Slashdot makes it easy to become a moderator. Giving large numbers of people small chunks of responsibility has proven effective in eliminating trolls and flame wars in the comment section. Still, the authority any one moderator commands is small, and the site's official poobahs maintain control over which stories are featured at the top of the site. "These things are far from utopian," says founder Rob Malda, aka CmdrTaco. "Slashdot tends to have a lot of 'Microsoft does something bad' stories. If I let the community run the whole thing, we'd have a lot more. But I don't want Slashdot to be the 'Microsoft Sucks' page. It's just one of many subjects."

Another compelling model comes from Helium.com, a Wikipedia-like repository of articles and editorials. Its founder, Silicon Valley veteran Mark Ranalli, compares his site to a capitalist version of Wikipedia. On Helium, contributors compete to have the top-ranked article on a given subject. As soon as you write an article, you're invited to pick your favorite of two articles on a similar subject. Requiring someone to write before he or she rates creates a more stable system: Rather than create a caste of creators and a caste of peons, Helium encourages everyone to do everything.

Every model has its drawbacks. Unlike Wikipedia, Helium doesn't lend itself to comprehensive articles drawing on many sources. Nor is Slashdot free of moron commenters, though its quotient is significantly lower than on any unmoderated message board. It's refreshing, though, that these sites acknowledge that Web 2.0 isn't a fairy-tale democracy without letting themselves become dictatorships. 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.

******

Got a better model for how to make democracy work on the Web? Let me know about it. (E-mail may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Chris Wilson is an editorial assistant at Slate in Washington, D.C.
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Notes from the Fray editor

"The reason your blog got trashed from Wikipedia is that your blog is bigoted, biased nonsense." Now is that a democratic edit or what? It comes from a hilarious thread here. The Fray gets positively wiki-like over articles like this one: after reading the text, a selection of the posts will make you even better-informed on the subject. There's a defense of the Encyclopedia Britannica here; Leroy Hurt talked about the importance of gatekeepers in the "turbulence of modern media," and Tdkehoe explains his "bad experiences with Wikipedia super editors." A Wikipedia administrator gives us some info in a thread which also contains a comparison between Wiki people and the old Fray stars…while elsewhere Eigenvector says "Heck, go to 'Dear Prudence' and upset the applecart--you'll quickly discover who hangs out in Slate and what they think of your non-Liberal opinions." We're all part of the same world. There's a record percentage of checked (ie good) posts in this Fray.

Comments from the Fray

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."

The truth is that you're a lot more likely to join the 'elite' of Wikipedia editors should you choose to do so than you are to join the 'elite' of federal lawmakers. So if you're concerned about democratic principles, it seems Wikipedia is doing a lot better than actual governments do.

--Xando

(To reply, click here)

There is one important aspect the myth of democracy overlooks (though the picture in the article hints at): ultimate control. Jimmy Wales has ultimate oversight into how Wikipedia functions. He may have had a good idea in being part of the creation of Wikipedia, but is he the choice for a maturing project? Is the choice of the masses? His background does not inspire me. Likewise, there is little concern over Google's desire to "organize the world's information"--yet they are one, relatively small private business.

I work as a librarian and play a small role in disseminating information that travels through authors, editors, publishers, and librarians. Slow and old fashioned? Sure, but it also lacks a centralized control that decides how your information will be controlled and presented

--Saru

(To reply, click here)

(2/26)