Robert Clausen
--------
In his blog entry “The Amorality of Web 2.0” Nicholas Carr explains some of the things that are wrong with web 2.0. He says that Web 2.0 is supposed to be a great collective intelligence of the entire world but it is not turning out that way. He uses Wikipedia as his biggest example to show the lack of quality that the collective intelligence of the internet comes up with. He is saying that the internet is changing the economics of creative work and not in a good way. People are reading things that are free and done by amateurs instead of paying for quality works that professionals do and are checked by editors to help make sure they are done right. With bloggers, he claims that there is an emphasis on opinion over reporting.
I agree with a lot of what Nicholas Carr said. However, I don’t believe that the internet collective intelligence will be of poor quality for very long. Web 2.0 is still relatively young and I think that the blogosphere quality will end up improving. Even though newspaper companies are going through many layoffs, blogs provide a place for these writers to share their work. His blog was written in 2005 and I’m sure that the quality of the Wikipedia examples have already improved greatly since he wrote it. Web 2.0 may not be a perfectly reliable source for free information, but I can see it heading that way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I think the contributions of Carr can be appreciated in his many articles, books and blogs. This is because Carr has decided to point spots where imporvements can be made in the world of IT. In fact it is true that we 2.0 might become a place where amateurs do their work, but so what? This is how the WWW started and much of the IT industry, by a couple of amateurs started to show other what they could do. The amorality of web 2.0 as Carr calls it is in fact a transition stage in my opinion that will later on lead to a richer enviroment. Since technology is never fixed forever, it is laways moving, changing and improving so will the software and way of doing services. In the end these transicitions/stages are done always for future improvement.
I kind of agree with Carr on what he wrote about Wikipedia, but I didn't really get what he didn't like about blogs. Was his problem that blogs are more opinion than information space? If so, I believe that blogosphere is all about opinion, even though the most work is done by amateur people and not professionals.
I do not believe what Carr said about Wikipedia how it is just a bunch of amateurs posting information. I think we talked about it in class that the encyclopedia and wikipedia are very similar. Also posting on Bill Gates would not even be in webster.
I sort of agree with Carr about the example that he used about Wikipedia. But how he said that Wikipedia is written by a bunch of amateurs, I feel was a bit of an overstatement. And when Carr talked about blogging, isn't blogging all about opinion at the end of the day?
craig sugiyama- I have never really given deep thought about what Nick Carr might be talking about until now. I have been guilty before of citing a site live wikipedia and never gave a second thought about it. Now it makes sense to me that you shouldnt always trust something just because it is written there. The main idea is that blogging, wiki etc. can be a good idea but should not become the primary source of information that people are going to depend on. This brings up the idea of "free always trumping quality" as we talked about in class people will always choose something they dont have to pay for over what may be more accurate.
Kim McNeely
In this article, Carr talks about how Web 2.0 is created by amateurs rather than professionals. With way the internet is today, anyone can go online and create a website or blog and call it legitimate even when it may not be. Information on the internet is free, therefore, it can not always be relied on. Carr describes how people are now subscribing to blogs for information rather than The New York Times or other validated sources. I found this interesting because I find myself also believing mostly anything just because it is on the internet. I agree with Carr’s comments about the internet being creating by amateurs because I very often find contradicting information, whether it be on wikipedia, or any other website created by someone who is not a professional on the topic.
I'm partialy agree with the author, as he examplified the wikipedia. Since wiki developed, there are many kinds of company which are bench marking wiki. Most of them's advantages are those sites can be edited by every netizen. That's really good way i think.
I didn't really like this article at all. Carr may be very smart and he may be one of the big faces of this new IT world, but does he really have to come out and express his feeling negatively. I feel like he is giving a negative opinion towards us as users. I thought we were the ones who make the web better. Some of our opinions may be off and some of our wikipedia postings might be wrong, but the bottom line is we as users make this platform of web 2.0 better with our feedback.
This article was pretty interesting. Carr points out the things everyone thought the internet could be, the way many people wish it was. But really the interente is the biggest porno store there is. Its funny to hear him say it could bring us all to a higher consiousness. If anything, its bringing us all down because we can watch some guy get hit in the junk over and over with a soup can on youtube.
Sara Supple- I thought this was a really weird article. He was such a critic about everything that Web 2.0 embraces like Wikipedia and blogs, but I don't really understand why. I get the point he was making about the content of blogs and how the source may not be trustworthy, but for the most part they are accurate thanks to the ability of other users being able to edit the content. I really didn't agree with his point on blogs- yes reporters can go more in-depth with their coverage because of the great amount of resources they have, but the whole point of blogs is to be able to get the 'average joe's' opinion. For the most part I thought this article was just a way for him to vent.
people trust the internet way too much. although people do choose free over quality they must understand the value of multiple sources. i think the survey we discussed in class about the amount of errors in a book vs wiki entry makes it hard to pick one source over another. also we must recognize that certain things are inherently opinionated like blogs.
Brett Peterson
The author was pretty opinionated about the morality of the internet being lost, and I disagree with him. The internet, like all innovations, must evolve. The evolution of the internet has moved more towards e-commerce than the original way of thinking of what the internet will be. This is completely fine because this is obviously what the general public wants because demand is high.
Darcy Crowell: I thought the part about the internet is changing the economy of the world to be very interesting. Instead of helping out,it restricts our choices rather than expand it. For example, the people who write the hard copies of say encyclopedias, are going out of the job because of Wikipedia and such. Also they are losing their jobs to amateurs rather than professionals. The internet in the long run will substitue little jobs like that that we may see irrelevant, but are important to other people.
lol. ok I thought this article was funny... well, funny-sad. Carr brought up a good point suggesting that society, all known as 'us,' embrace easier, cheaper, and free over quality. I believe this. I think I recently read that Wal-Mart is the number one gross income chain in America or similar' basically America supports cheaper products, lower quality.
This article also reminds me of another argument regarding the 'fall' of humanity; how dumb ppl usually reproduce 5 times as many times as professionals...
This article, and others that I have read from Nicholas Carr, shows that he has a very unique view of IT today. In reference to what he says about blogs not being accurate information, I think the general public know that blogs are just opinions of the contributors. Some people, i.e. Dan Rather, may interpret blogs as fact. But most of us don't. As far as using wiki's for research material. I think it is a good supplement to a research project. But it is always good to use several sources for well-rounded, accurate research.
Post a Comment