Week 3 - Weekly Update

"The status quo"

After having covered off on the blogging sub topic one overriding thought sprung to mind: What if the volume driven status quo has got it wrong?

I'll refer to sites such as Blogger, where the masses create the points of interest and decide where others should go, and where the most efficient information lies.  So if we're talking about a topic that is less well understood, isn't there an inherent risk of the people in a way mis-informing others?  As much as I support user driven content, I think that there should be (and well could be) a stop-gap in place to stem the sway that the populous has.  Two examples to explain further: Wikipedia and Youtube.  Wikipedia is a site that people go to for information covering a wide array of topics, they expect that information to be highly accurate.  The controls covering what is added to the pages within this site should be kept tightly monitored, as we all know how random humans can be, and special interest groups love to have power over information.  The issue is less magnified with sites like Youtube or flickr.  This is so because the content that is uploaded is serving a more creative than informative purpose.  Any informative aspect to a photo or video is static, another user cannot go in later and edit part of the video (however they could download, edit and upload that video). 

A more extreme example is http://www.urbandictionary.com/, The Urban dictionary, there are other such sites but I'll cover this one.  So, a dictionary site where people can add their own descriptions to any key word? Interesting concept, where is this placed in terms of Mirriam Websters wide spanning influence?  The urban dictionarys' slogan is "Urban Dictionary is the dictionary you wrote. Define your world". Now, what if I go and write a summary for "Australia" that is completely incorrect, scrambled and illogical?  Someone may need to submit an edit request.  What if I write a sparkling summary with a high level of detail and clarity, only to have someone lobby to have changes made that would in effect falsify my work and perhaps link in to a piece of information that I would not want it linked with?  A voting system could be introduced, I suppose, to bring back that mass audience and their much respected combined viewpoint. 

This post ultimately ties in with democracy as it manifested online.  Misinformation has always been a threat to precise, free-flowing stream of information.  I'm just not sure if Web 2.0 will alleviate that risk or exacerbate it.