Skip to main content

The Wisdom of the Chaperones

Popularity Report

Total Popularity Score: 0
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

Rank

Bookmark History

Saved by 14 people (2 private), first by anonymouse user on 2008-02-23


Public Sticky notes

Wikipedia-hater

Highlighted by alexakaul

people are catching up to the idea that Wikipedia is a force for good, there are still huge misconceptions about what makes the encyclopedia tick. While Wikipedia does show the creative potential of online communities, it's a mistake to assume the site owes its success to the wisdom of the online crowd.

Highlighted by alexakaul

f Web democracy, places built by millions of Web users who all act as writers, editors, and voters

Highlighted by alexakaul

According to researchers in Palo Alto, 1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits.

Highlighted by doobii

According to researchers in Palo Alto, 1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits.

Highlighted by caweldude

This is not the wisdom of the crowd. This is the wisdom of the chaperones.

Highlighted by bibliothecaire

undemocratic

Highlighted by alexakaul

social-bookmarking hub where people submit stories and rate others' submissions; the most popular links gravitate to the site's front page. The site's founders have never hidden that they use a "secret sauce"—a confidential algorithm that's tweaked

Highlighted by alexakaul

Last year, the top 100 Diggers submitted 44 percent of the site's top stories. In 2006, they were responsible for 56 percent.

Highlighted by doobii

is largely run by 100 people.

Highlighted by alexakaul

Digg tweaked its secret sauce, top contributors noticed a decline in influence—fewer of their submissions became top stories.

Highlighted by alexakaul

At both Digg and Wikipedia, small groups of users have outsized authority.

Highlighted by doobii

Digg and Wikipedia, small groups of users have outsized authority

Highlighted by alexakaul

At both Digg and Wikipedia, small groups of users have outsized authority. In the case of Wikipedia, this authority is both organic and institutionalized. A small segment of highly active users author the majority of the site's content; there are also elected site administrators who have the power to protect pages, block the IP addresses of problem users, and otherwise regulate Wikipedia's operations.

Highlighted by caweldude

uthority is both organic and institutionalized.

Highlighted by alexakaul

elected site administrators

Highlighted by alexakaul

Digg, active users have more of a de facto authority over the site's goings-on

Highlighted by alexakaul

Digg and Wikipedia's elite users aren't chosen by a corporate board of directors or by divine right. They're the people who participate the most.

Highlighted by doobii

oligarchies

Highlighted by alexakaul

Digg and Wikipedia's elite users aren't chosen by a corporate board of directors or by divine right. They're the people who participate the most

Highlighted by alexakaul

Despite the fairy tales about the participatory culture of Web 2.0, direct democracy isn't feasible at the scale on which these sites operate. Still, it's curious to note that these sites seem to have the hierarchical structure of the old-guard institutions they've sought to supplant.

Highlighted by caweldude

eople who've made more than 10,000 edits add nearly twice as many words to Wikipedia as they delete. By contrast, those who've made fewer than 100 edits are the only group that deletes more words than it adds. A small number of people are writing the articles, it seems, while less-frequent users are given the tasks of error correction and typo fixing.

Highlighted by alexakaul