What I Don't Like About Web 2.0

I know that I find things like Wikipedia useful as an introduction to a topic, but that's about all. It serves to give me "good keywords" from which to search more reliable sources for accurate detail. If I were an instructor/supervisor for someone that gave me research based entirely on a site like Wikipedia - I would doubt the credibility of the research. 1) It's a lazy way out. 2) It shows a lack of understanding on authoritative sources. All it reliably serves to do is inform you "what you don't know to ask".

I'm not a fan of opinion blogs as a reference. You see all too often on sites like Digg that opinion blogs get a giant surge of traffic when it's "what the audience wants to hear" and it begins to be trumpeted as fact. Their writing typically doesn't even cite anything! The behavior would be akin to the New York Times putting it's OP/ED section on the front page and staff writer's work as an insert into the comics.

Sure - it's great that everybody has a say easily. But do they necessarily need to have a say? Perhaps the very mild learning curve of being able to create a webpage was the barrier to keeping riff raff from publishing. If you really have something worth saying, you'll do the work necessary to be heard and accepted. I believe moderation has its place and works that can stand on their own without wiki-edits are valuable resources.

This is not to say wikis and discussion forums are bad. They just have to be kept in their place. They are certainly excellent tools for hobbyists or people with like interests. But as a source of credible information? Not so much.

Star This to Save in Your Profile