There are many reasons why a person will spend most of his or her waking hours online. For those who are drawn inexorably into the great teeming ant-farm of Web 2.0 (T–H–L), there is the prospect of gaining approval from the digital masses for one’s incomparable wit, deep insights and incisive snark, without the downside of having to make actual personal contact. In fact, for those who deeply feel that they have no life, Web 2.0 offers the additional allure of being able to create one or more personas de novo, and then bask in the admiration that they receive from their online brethren.
For the standard social networking sites such as Facebook, approval comes in the form of “likes” for posted comments and images, as well as the deeper, more meaningful process of becoming “friends.” But at Wikipedia, with its pronounced element of MMORPGism, the system is more complex. Wikipedians have no
…continue reading The Art of the Diva Quit
The following exchanges were culled from a recent, interesting series of threads at the Wikipediocracy Forum.
Sometimes the way you describe a thing can be a more powerful comment on it, than any actual comment. The tech industry talks about ‘Web 2.0’, which sounds incredible and futuristic and technologically advanced, as well as ‘cool’ and modern. But let’s call it what it really is, namely ‘The Exploitation Economy’.
Similarly, ‘user-generated culture’ should be ‘DIY culture’. And don’t talk about the tech industry, or Google or YouTube, call it ‘The Content Theft Industry’. The Berkman Centre and other academic institutions funded by the Content Theft Industry are really “The Pirate Propaganda Machine” or “Thieves posing as revolutionaries”. Blogs and other media such as Slashdot and the rest, which support thieves and their enablers, should be called “The Anti-Copyright Press” or “Digital parasites”. Their political lobbying machine is “The U.S. Pirate Party”. What
…continue reading Open Source vs. “Free Culture”: a colloquy