It’s a Web 2.0 world, where the individual user is king, and where users in masses are considered the authoritative voice on any topic they lend their numbers to. Crowdsourcing, harnessing the collective brainpower of the masses, 10,000 geeks can’t be wrong!
The basic idea is that given enough pairs of eyes, the most correct information and best content will come to the surface, surpassing incorrect or irrelevant content. It’s a truly democratic system where whoever gets the most votes, wins. Great in theory, but does it work in practice?
As an example of this well-intentioned system failing, I offer up Digg.com, current darling of the user-driven Web 2.0 world. Registered users of the site can submit content, and “Digg” items they find interesting. They can also vote to remove something from the site they feel is spam.
In theory, the idea is great and a fair method for selecting content. However since it’s largely automated, it is open to abuse. It is extremely vulnerable to the biases of a limited group of users who can choose to act as a single unit to either promote or remove content from the site. Digg works on the concept that it is the best content selection system, that what it presents is an accurate and fair cross section of users.
Unfortunately, that’s not the case. While Digg dreams of itself as being the aggregator of all Internet news and content that’s the most interesting, true and relevant, I would suggest that it’s free-for-all, unrestricted system is its biggest barrier to that success.
Microsoft has been making a big push lately to secure their dominance in the field of small, Internet-based or Internet-enhancing utilities and applications. It started with MSN Messenger oh so long ago and has grown with the recent refocusing on the Windows Live brand, centered largely around the online services at Live.com