November 5th, 2006
A Fundamental Truth of the Web
by Joshua Porter | 
9 Comments | shortlink: http://bokardo.com/p/503
“People have, since it started, complained about the fact that there is junk on the web. And as a universal medium, of course, it is important that the web itself doesn’t try to decide what is publishable. The way quality works on the web is through links.
It works because reputable writers make links to things they consider reputable sources. So readers, when they find something distasteful or unreliable, don’t just hit the back button once, they hit it twice.”
This is a fundamental truth to the Web. This is how the Web is made meaningful. This is how data, in databases or XML files or some mini-format, are made useful by people. This is also why Google works, because they realized that they could make a reputation engine that approximated value in the social linking activity on the Web.
Some folks want to create authoritative sources so that they don’t have to think about things…don’t have to consider the source and the context of life. Down with Wikipedia because it’s not authoritative! Down with Digg because it is gamed! Down with Google because of SPAM! Just give me the answer, dammit!
But if you walk down Main Street, USA, and listen in on conversations what you hear is more like Wikipedia or Digg or Google than it is the Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Associated Press, or a Librarian. These tools are the people’s tools, because they are built on the relationships of millions of people, not the expertise of a few. Most people aren’t experts, and most people don’t need no stinkin’ experts.
There is something great in thinking that on the Web we are free to pursue our own reputation. If we write well, help others, continue learning, and link to valuable resources we can carve out a niche where there was none. Is this an egalitarian pipe-dream? I don’t know. Perhaps it is, perhaps not.
But whether it is or it isn’t, do as Tim suggests, and don’t make people click the Back Button twice.
Links to this Post
Comments
1. Marius Popescu 11:06am, Mon 6th, 2006
> Is this an egalitarian pipe-dream? I don’t know.
> Perhaps it is, perhaps not.
Well, yeah, it could be. The important thing is to remember that
(maybe not perfectly phrased, translated from french)
2. Margaret Henderson 7:51am, Fri 10th, 2006
I think including Librarians in with the Associated Press and Encyclopedia is quite wrong. While we do consider the source of information and question how reliable it is, we do not censor information or withold it. Why do you think librarians via the American Library Association were fighting the Patriot Act? Why do you think the ALA has a banned books week? Just to name a couple of examples. We organize and find information, we don’t judge its worth.
3. Josh 8:49am, Fri 10th, 2006
You’re right, Margaret. That was a dumb thing to say. I should have explained myself better.
What I meant was that when people talk, they don’t sound like a reference book, and they certainly aren’t as knowledgeable or as thorough as a librarian would be. Librarians are experts, and most people are muddlers.
Here I am muddling through this comment…
4. Margaret Henderson 12:04pm, Fri 10th, 2006
Thanks for the reply. And don’t worry, we all muddle.
5. Darla Grediagin 12:40pm, Fri 10th, 2006
My fear with the social networking sites and librarians is that if librarians don’t become users of the Web 2.0 they will be seen as use to bes. I guess I don’t see my job as ‘being an expert’ but more as being a guide. In some cases, Wikipedia is the best source for someone. We just need to make sure they know that if there question isn’t answered there, a library can take them more indepth.