Web2.0 | pureinformation.org

A couple of us from ALA and Public Knowledge attended the “Anthropology of YouTube” event at the Library of Congress today. I didn’t realize beforehand who was presenting, but when we arrived, I found out that Michael Wesch was the slated speaker. Wesch is an Assistant Professor in Anthropology at Kansas State University, and the directors of the Digital Ethnography Work Group. You may have heard of this group before–Wesch created the video “Web 2.0 … The Machine is Us/ing Us,” which has been viewed nearly 6 million times on YouTube (and has 7000 comments!), and has been discussed extensively in the blogosphere. Side note: I still don’t really get his students’ somewhat self-loathing reply “A Vision of Students Today“–it may be accurate, but it seems a little bleak.

Wesch says that participatory web 2.0 tools like YouTube can empower individuals and create new communities in a global network. Not too much new here, but Wesch is extremely interested in exploring the cultural and identity dynamics behind YouTube. At the center is not just content, he says, but the people that create it. He says we see media as mediating human relationships. Users come to see themselves as part of the YouTube community (5% of videos specifically address the community itself, aka users talking at the camera). Wesch describes that new users discover how to address an empty webcam and millions of viewers at the same time. This is meta- meta- meta-congnition, he says; users can develop a hyper self-awareness. He also claims that we’re seeing that multi-facted identities can be an accepted and healthy online behavior.

Wesch speaks of Robert Putnam, exploring how he wrote in the mid 90s that “meeting in an electronic forum is not the same as meeting in a bowling alley.” While this is true, we see some extremely strong bonds being formed and strengthened on social networking sites like YouTube. Wesch also discusses the authenticity crisis that has plagued places like YouTube, with creative, staged dramas like lonelygirl15 creating a huge stir of controversy. He briefly touched on the fact that while fair use protects some of the heavy remixing that goes on in YouTube, much of the reuse of materials is probably illegal. While the Center for Social Media and others have done some great work on the expanded potential for fair use (see Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video), perhaps we’ve entered a new era of “tolerated use.”

With all the talk about youth participating in participatory technologies, it seems that we need to continue to support the kind of eye-opening research done by Wesch and his team. However, here in Washington, continued talk of “protecting our children” dominates legislative rhetoric surrounding web 2.0 products and services. We all love the kids, but the misleading talk of social networking sites and participatory media tools as dangerous and teeming with online predators really ovepowers the national discussion. It’s a shame. If we really want our kids to be engaged, learn in new ways, become politically motivated, and reach out to diverse communities, we need to hear about and then support the positive ways new technologies can shape their lives.

Recently, Slate ran an article titled “The Wisdon of the Chaperones: Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy.” The gist of Chris Wilson’s article reveals that user-generated content sites such as Wikipedia and Digg, touted as democratic entities of collaborative knowledge production, are not really democratic at all. Wilson writes:

Social-media sites are celebrated as shining examples of Web democracy, places built by millions of Web users who all act as writers, editors, and voters. In reality, a small number of people are running the show.

He may be right, but this is nothing new. And are we surprised? Online communities will initially reflect traditional communities. We shouldn’t think that a dash of web 2.0 will automatically change the way knowledge communities have been constructed and maintained for hundreds of years. But we should recognize that this process is changing–sites like Wikipedia are empowering thousands of new users every week, no matter how much the community still seems to be comprised of a few influential contributors. This is also changing, and will continue to change as Wikipedia grows. New users will be able to contribute, while the big guys can stick around. Maybe this is not so much a revolution as it is a non-rivalrous (and potentially mutually beneficial) inclusive environment.

Wilson’s claims about Wikipedia’s governance and maintenance structure suggests an unregulated free-for-all few would support. He writes:

[Wikipedia] deploys bots—supervised by a special caste of devoted users—that help standardize format, prevent vandalism, and root out folks who flood the site with obscenities. This is not the wisdom of the crowd. This is the wisdom of the chaperones.

Is this so unreasonable? Do we really object if vandals and spam are banished?

Wilson references an article titled “Power of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie,” but fails to accurately represent its conclusions. Sure, 1 percent of Wikipedia users may be responsible for about half of the site’s edits, but as Aaron Swartz points out, content–not number of edits, is what we need to be looking at. Even the authors admit, “by counting each edit instead of the length of each edit, we effectively treat, say, the deletion of a comma as equivalent to the addition of three paragraphs of text.”

If we look at the amount of content changed and not the running edit count, we see a different story. Swartz’s calculations show that the majority of Wikipedia’s content is created by outsiders (those with few edits) while the majority of the cleanup and tweaking is made by insiders (those with lots of edits):

An outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site — the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it’s the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content.

Wilson continues to discuss the Palo Alto research article:

People 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.

I will argue that no one “gives” anyone anything to do on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the reason many less-frequent users may begin with error correction and typo fixing is exactly because they are beginners. Like in any community, newbies progress through a similar process in learning the norms and rules of contributing before becoming an expert.

The aforementioned research paper sums up the changing nature of Wikipedia and contradicts Wilson’s flawed analysis concerning the undemocratic nature of user-generated content sites like Wikipedia and Digg:

We discovered an initial rise and subsequent decline in the influence of “elite” users. This result held true whether elite users were defined by peer-selected groups (administrators) or data-driven groups (high-edit users). We demonstrated that this decline was not due to a decrease in elite user activity or to shifts in user group editing patterns, but instead was driven by marked growth in the population of low-edit users — the rise of the bourgeoisie.

The barriers to participation are low on user-generated content sites like Wikipedia. If we are to fully realize what scholars see as new media’s “participatory revolution” (where traditional consumers of knowledge have become the producers of it) we need to continue support the engagement and education of new users on democratic sites Wikipedia.