henrikharsbo.dk

The Blog That Makes You Yawn

Are there subjects that are just too irrelevant to blog about?  I don't think so. But this particular danish blog puts new spark into the argument that indeed sometimes it is very hard to make subject matter interesting for outsiders.

The blog is called storrumsblog.dk (it's in Danish) and is basically about how 6 municipal employees are coping with working in an open-space office. It is co written by all of them.

Now, you'd think it'd be interesting to learn how people are dealing with issues like noise, privacy and so forth in an open space. But it surely isn't at storrumsblog.dk. Mainly because the writers never really seem to dish out their true inner feelings about things, writing only in general terms.

The writing is stripped of the human touch that is so vital to good blogging. I don't blame the bloggers, though. It turns out they are blogging on behalf of an organization committed to improving the work environment (BARFOKA) and this is where the problem lies. The stringent organizational aim on work environment seeps through to the writers, who don't really say anything new or interesting in their posts.

Here are two posts from the blog in their entirety (my translation):   

"We have gotten two new colleagues and have moved around to make room for them. It must be nice to sit in an open-space office when you're new to a company. That way you are close to your colleagues instead of being cooped up in your own office." (Tue, 15. maj 2007)

"It is hard to work in an open office when colleagues have different standards for tidiness. When you look at an open office it will always look messy unless you have rules for what the employees are allowed to have on their desks." (Henny, 15. febuar 2007)

...!!

My guess is, that there is a web editor somewhere in BARFOKA pulling the strings teaching these people to blog. The advice he or she should give them: Don't be afraid of communicating how you feel as long as your being ethical about it.

This of course isn't easy. But whether you manage to do this or not is what makes or breaks you in the blogosphere.

Crowdhacking Is Here

This had to happen. People are rigging online rating, review and feedback systems.

Sites like eBay and Yahoo Shopping have had tricksters fake online credibility by manipulating product reviews and seller scores. The sucky story comes from Wired News.

"As rating systems have become more popular and (...) valuable (...) there has been what some would say is a predictable response: the emergence of scammers, spammers, and thieves bent on manipulating the mob. Call it crowdhacking. In some cases, crowdhackers are looking to boost sales or increase traffic to their Web sites. In other instances, they’re simply ripping off unsuspecting consumers. Either way, the more we base decisions on the wisdom of crowds, the greater the incentive to cheat."

Success For Wikipedia

Wikipedia is now among the ten most popular Web sites in the U.S, reports Yahoo News.

The site passed the threshold to the top ten in January where it ranked ninth with 42.9 million unique visitors putting the collaborative encyclopedia ahead of sites like The New York Times (number 10), Apple Inc. (number 11), and Viacom International Inc. (number 12).

January last year, Wikipedia was the 33rd most visited Web site in the US with 18.3 million unique visitors.

Globally Wikipedia has been among the top ten most popular sites for some time.

All in all the significant increase in number of visitors strongly indicates that Web Sites, where users create content in collaboration, really do have a place in this world :-) 

Wikipedia To Accept Ads

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is considering accepting ads on the pages of the successful encyclopedia. The move could generate hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenues, writes Times Online.

I think that's a great idea. But only if the Wikipedians can find a way to bolster the editorial content against commercial interests. That is going to be a difficult task since the defining trait of Wikipedia is that there are no editors in charge of the content.

Also I would very much like to see a large portion of the money earned used to do good in the world! Luckily Jimmy Wales ensures that this is indeed the objective:

»The Foundation's mission is to provide a free online encyclopedia to everyone in the world in their own language. Mr Wales said that both he and the site's community of volunteers would have to ask themselves "how the charitable mission could be supported by money raised through advertising".«

Happy New Year everybody :-)

Technorati: Wikipedia |Advertising

Wikipedia Faces Competition

Digital Universe is the name of a new encyclopedia which launches early 2006. The site is set to challenge collaborative knowledge banks such as Wikipedia.

Like Wikipedia Digital Universe will receive most of its content from users but in addition Digital Universe will have acknowledged experts in a range of subjects review the material, writes news.com.

The launch comes at a tricky time for Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where you, me and everybody else can publish anything at anytime without having expert editors intervene. The wiki service is still stumbling from the blows it took when a user posted false allegations about John Seigenthaler Sr.

I question whether expert reviewers will help create any real credibility for Digital Universe, though. Yes it's true that experts in themselves are perceived of as more credible than lay persons. But the fact still stands that Wikipedia in a recent study was shown to be just as reliable as the expert driven creme of the crop of encyclopedias: Encyclopedia Britannica. This tells me that the general public doesn't need an official board of expert reviewers to produce a reliable encyclopedia.

Technorati: Wikipedia |Credibility

Study: Wikipedia As Reliable As Britannica

The latest debate about the credibility of Wikipedia is put into perspective by a study conducted by the scientific journal Nature.

Nature has had scientists investigate Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica's coverage of science and surprisingly the exercise revealed that among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great. The average science entry in Wikipedia had around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.

Encyclopedia Britannica is commonly seen as the credible voice of science whilst Wikipedia is often talked of as the less reliable source written by lay persons.

"Yet, Nature's investigation suggests that Britannica's advantage may not be great, at least when it comes to science entries," writes the journal.

Technorati: Wikipedia |Credibility

Web 2.0: Old Wine, New Bottles

Web 2.0. It's the talk of the web. Google offers no less than 242.000.000 search results. But what is this 2.0 thing? Tim O'Reilly (at the top of the Google list) offers an explanation so broad that almost anything can be deemed web 2.0.

As I see it web 2.0 is basically about user orientation, participation and involvement. But does that really call for the introduction of a whole new term? Hasn't the web always been about involving  users? I remember attending web conferences in the late nineties where dialog, conversation and collaboration were essential keywords. The social web was a topic even before the dot-com bubble burst.

Among other things Wikipedia has this to say on the matter:

"[web 2.0] means whatever its proponents decide that they want it to mean in order to convince the media and investors that they are creating something fundamentally new, rather than continuing to develop and use well-established technologies."

I'm not sure if this is the case. But I do know that the term and the hype surrounding it somehow bothers me.

Technorati: Web 2.0|Internet

Wikipedia Not Less Credible

Wikipedia has really taken a blow in the past week. The whole deal took off when a false Wikipedia entry about John Seigenthaler Sr., a former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville, was discovered by Seigenthaler himself. In the entry he was falsely linked to the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy.

Now it turns out that the entry wasn't written out of ill will against Seigenthaler. It was a prank that an employee at a small delivery company tried to play on one of his co-workers who knew of the Seigenthaler family. The prankster has now revealed himself and apologized to Seigenthaler, writes CNET News.com.

Strange what some people find humorous!

American media is now debating whether Wikipedia is at all credible and whether to trust web sites where penmanship for anyone is only the stroke of a keyboard away?

In my opinion the Seigenthaler incident doesn't change a damn thing. Wikipedia is not less trustworthy for this. Silly prank or not, web pages as any other media should never stand alone. If I was researching a subject there's no way I would rely on just one source. Only by using several different sources can one get a fuller (no not full) picture.

The whole story bears a striking resemblance to the NYT-incident where a reporter admitted to having fabricated articles. I don't automatically distrust mainstream media more for that reason. Incidents like these just reaffirm my strong belief in fact checking.

Technorati: Wikipedia |Credibility

Fear Of Citizen Journalism

Are citizen journalists stealing work from freelance journalists? A question that was recently discussed in The London Freelance Branch of the British National Union of Journalists. The discussion apparently didn't really bring forth any real evidence of user-generated content (gotta love the phrase) costing jobs among journalists. But it appears fear still prevails among London freelancers.

This strikes me me as rather odd. Journalism is a craft and like any other craft it cannot be properly carried out by people who are not trained. Thus the buzz about citizen journalism mainly stems from extreme incidents - the London tube bombings for instance - where the immediacy of the eye witness account ousts any call for a strictly journalistic approach.

Journalists still have a major role to play as mediators of events and the importance of that role only increases as the number of sources in the shape of citizen journalists, bloggers and laymen commentators continue to grow.

Technorati: Citizen journalism |Journalism

Frozen Wiki

A wiki that you cannot edit! It seems like a paradox in terms, but the ever so successful Wikipedia is now to slam the door to some of its content.

»There may soon be so-called stable content. In this case, we'd freeze the pages whose quality is undisputed,« founder Jimbo Wales recently told German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung

The freezing of pages is intended to stop the many edit wars that haunt several of the articles in the 641 000+ article encyclopedia. Moreover locking content will prevent trolls from harming content. Recently trolls substituted a Wikipedia picture of pope Benedikt XVI with a picture of Darth Vader.

I think the idea of locking content is great. In fact I think this is the only way to go for both Wikipedia, Wikinews and sites alike if they are to stay successful. Only problem is how to determine when a page is stable enough for freezing. As I see it, the right way to do this is to ask for an expert opinion. Bring in the scholars to judge whether something is ready for the freezer or not. It has to be open minded scholars however who are willing to look at articles from alternative perspectives.

Optimally I would like to see Wikipedia establishing an editorial board consisting of both scholars and laypersons. It would then be up to this board to judge whether something is stable or not.

The wrong way to go about locking pages would be relying solely on a democratic vote among users.

Technorati: Media |Journalism