[haircute]

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article1874668.ece

I mean ALL of us. We are ruining everything by being here.
_________________
Get Wild and Tough!

[Broco]

Meanwhile the book publishing industry continues to grow at the slow but steady pace of around 1% a year; mediocre local newspapers shut down but prestigious papers like the New York Times and The Economist grow hugely; and Britannica probably has more readers than it did thirty years ago even if it's making less cash.

[Ebrey]

The point of "web 2.0" is to laugh at fat kids pretending to be Jedis and David Hasselhof drunk off his ass (which doesn't compete with traditional media). I agree with him that anyone who gets their politics/music/poetry from the net is an idiot, but I'd like to think they aren't the majority.

[negativedge]

I sort of agree. I think web culture is quite harmful, and I think "democratization" of nearly anything inevitably leads to mediocrity. At the same time, hey, a talented and/or innovative dude with a camera or a guitar is finding it much easier to get their abilities out into the open now that they no longer have to deal with horrific industry politics intent on shoveling shit.

So, uhhh, I don't know.

[haze]

[psiga]

HAhahaha.

Worse still, the supposed “democratisation” of the web has been a sham. “Despite its lofty idealisation it’s undermining truth, souring civic discourse, and belittling expertise, experience and talent,” he says.

Has he looked at American media? National televised news is not democratic, it's imperial-capitalistic. Orders from the top down, decisions based on who's worth the most money. You don't get much more truth or civic discourse there, either.

Arbitrating on the dispute, Wikipedia gave no weight to his expertise, and treated him with the same credibility as his anonymous opponent.

de·moc·ra·cy "The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community."

The simple truth is that the mediocre majority was always there, just not as noisy. The simple truth is that they never would've been paying for a subscription to Britannica anyway. The simple truth is that despite the wanton innaccuracies of Wikipedia, the masses are still better informed now than before -- which may not be saying much, but it's a little thing we call "progress."

So the expat brit is going boo-hoo over the lack of imperialism on the internet. Gosh dang. I'll muster up what little Native American blood I've got in me so I can cry a solitary, stoic tear.
_________________

[rf]

I'm not sure if I disagree with most of this or not.

The one thing that bothers me is how all of these kinds of articles neglect that Wikipedia can fit a useful niche, as a quick "first pass" source or as a source on obscure and marginal topics, even if it has lots of errors. I mean, everything has flaws an errors--even traditional encyclopedias, for one thing. It's like saying that since there is some dirt hiding somewhere in the corners of your clean-looking house, it is dirty and unsanitary and you must evacuate immediately. All-or-nothing thought.
_________________

[G.]

Whoa, Metal Gear Solid 2 flashback.

For all that throwing around with "evolution" in that article, they do seem to forget that random mutations will include one that is best adapted to the circumstances (cutting alot of corners here, don't hold me accountable).
I wonder if 10 years after the beginning of people getting literate, someone said: "This reading and writing nonsense has got to stop! People are producing drivel by the motherload!!!"

[taidan]

[inmatarian]

I like how the article completely rips on blogs and the like for allowing the uniformed comments of the ignorant, and then underneath the article is a place for readers to make comments.
_________________

2993 badness blog email

[rabite gets whacked!]

I like that Pol Pot bit, yeah. And the bit where he equates Scholars vs. Wikipedia to The Recording Industry vs. Internet Pirates. It's the same things guys!

[blind]

[Jeff Garneau]

nobody of taste would stoop to think that some shit that's popular on web2.0 is good. the real problem is that people without taste think that they are good just because they're popular. this is a problem that is essential to the web itself, not just web 2.0 (though every incarnation facilitates it further).


i mean, it's no accident that the nerds of our generation are ten times more confident, aggressive and annoying than the nerds of our parents generation. there's a million things like this website to rub their backs and tell them they have worthwhile opinions.

[psiga]

[Toups]

agreeing with psiga ITT
_________________

[BenoitRen]

I agree with the article that Web 2.0 is enabling users to make a lot more crap, and that it's somewhat equivalent to monkeys with type-writers. I have to look no further than my own home for evidence of this. One look at what my sister is busy with on the Internet is enough. People submit a lot of pictures to sites like Netlog, which users make silly comments on, sometimes going even as far as showing underwear.

I disagree about Wikipedia. It's a great resource of information with decent moderation. One thing it's not good at is touchy subjects, though ("zomg Aerith nut Aeris!"). Oh, the drama...

Weblogs are a mixed bag. Yes, there are good weblogs, but these days almost every one has a web log where they post the most inane stuff that has no relevance whatsoever, just because they think it's cool to have a weblog where you post things.

Crappy content isn't really new, though. But it was more controlled, like, on select websites. Years back, it was GeoCities, Tripod, and Angelfire, mainly.
_________________
Get Xenoblade Chronicles!

[dhex]

[inmatarian]

I like it when the comments aren't part of the blog page itself, and tucked away somewhere where it isn't important who sees it. Like how the dailywtf works.
_________________

2993 badness blog email

[CubaLibre]

I don't really believe in information overload. The human mind is exceedingly adept at filtering data. If you don't want to see it, don't look at it. Problem solved.

Also I like how web 2.0 is "ruining the music industry" - as opposed to, you know, the studio system that uses computer algorithms to grind out 3.2 minute hits. Give me a break.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[GalaxyHead]

Get out of the Internet

(and into my car).
_________________
“We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population, but that is not our mission,” - Harry Schoell, Cyclone Power Technologies Inc, in response to erroneous reports about a robot under development.

[Predator Goose]

[Jeff Garneau]

[taidan]

[SplashBeats]

that guy's argument strikes me as rather classist and ignorant.

[Zebadayus]

The internet is not going to eliminate publishing houses, film studios, tv stations, and record companies.

The internet is amazing because of the voice it gives everyone. Sure, stupid people get a voice too, but it's not like you're forced to read/hear every bit of it.

TALENTED people can get their talent out there easier, and that's awesome.

I've noticed that the videos and stuff that do become popular on the net tend to be stuff that's actually entertaining.

[SplashBeats]

his argument basically boils down to "poor people without connections to the entertainment/news industry should have absolutely no voice"

[Zebadayus]

[SplashBeats]

he claims that the news/entertainment media is a quality filter, and the democratization of the web has eliminated it.

you know, because the RIAA and MPAA are all about quality.

[Jeff Garneau]

riaa/mpaa aren't really media. things like clearchannel would probably be more apt as a quality filter but i didn't read it and its probably essentially wrongheaded but right.


also fuck poor people.

[dmauro]

[L]

[Mr. Apol]

[haircute]

[Hot Stott Bot]

[CubaLibre]

[dhex]

this article on "wikigroaning" might be of some interest. cribbed from somethingawful, natch.

the comparison between apocalypse and resident evil: apocalypse says something. what, i'm not sure, but it says something.

[taidan]

[CubaLibre]

It's really not the same thing at all, but they share a common ancestry.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[taidan]

[CubaLibre]

You're mostly right taidan. Still, it's worth pointing out that what the guy is doing is taking someone else's art and co-opting it wholesale for an entirely new narrative. That's sort of groundbreaking, in its way.

Also, mostly it's just funny, but Dumbedore's monologue about the mirror thing is seriously epic.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[L]