Missing The Point On Amateur Content Online
from the it's-amateur-for-a-reason dept
Nicholas Carr has a way about him: he comes up with impressive theories that sound so smart -- but which are often painfully wrong. However, he does a good job of leading you down the road to wrongness so gracefully that it seems like maybe he's right. His big splash a few years ago was over the idea that technology held no competitive advantage for anyone. The argument was that technology was becoming commoditized (something that was likely true), and therefore, any advantage was fleeting (again true, but not really the point). What he was missing was that those fleeting competitive advantages are the key these days, and simply having the technology your competitor has is quite different than really leveraging it to your advantage. Carr's making some noise again, this time complaining that an internet made up of "amateurs" is a bad thing, using Wikipedia as his straw man. Again, he so gracefully leads people down this road by stating a few things that are true, that it's easy to miss where he goes completely off the road. As with others who have trashed Wikipedia, he goes on about why you should never trust amateurs, and that the world needs "experts." While it's absolutely true that experts are important -- hell, we've based our entire business on that very concept -- what Carr and others agreeing with him seem to be (conveniently) forgetting is that amateurs and experts are not mutually exclusive. Combined, they actually create a much better solution. The experts are still necessary and useful, but the amateurs help bring out more info and raise new and important questions and ideas. The amateurs aren't "taking down" the experts -- they're just making them even more necessary. The problem is that too many experts are frightened of these amateurs, rather than looking at ways to embrace and encourage the amateurs in a productive way. Embracing the amateurs opens up new and exciting possibilities for the experts -- it lets them turn that amateur content into something much more useful and valuable than either the experts or the amateurs could have done alone.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Amateur Experts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amateur Experts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amateur Experts?
But, it seems like you're now distorting my point (so is it fair game for me to insult you now too?). My point does counter Carr's, noting that this *opens up new opportunities* for experts. That doesn't disagree with your interpretation of Carr either, so I'm not sure why I deserve such scorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if amateurs are harmful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Which is exactly the point. Experts aren't separate from the "amateurs" online. They can contribute to things like Wikipedia, or help point out what is right and wrong in wikipedia.
One of the complaints used against me in my last discussion on Wikipedia was that you wouldn't let "amateurs" conduct brain surgery on you -- but that assumed (again) that there were no brain surgeons among the amateurs. It's not hard to figure out when a real expert is around, and most non-experts will default to the experts in such situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
For instance, someone who has just finished med school may very well be an expert on cardiology. However, until they have more experience practicing cardiology, they will still be an amateur, and not an "expert." It doesn't diminish the fact that they know something about what they are doing.
Furthermore, Wikipedia acknowledges the fact the information there isn't always 100% accurate, and they warn the reader of that. Wikipedia doesn't claim to have the correct answers or information on all of its subjects. It states that it is user-contributed. That should be enough to let people know that the people giving them information could be "amateurs" or "experts"; that alone is enough of a disclaimer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
If a bunch of fools want to get on the net and try to self dignose and self treat then more power to them.
I personaly will get all my medical advice from a real certified Dr. I want to see his cert. handing on the wall when I walk into his office.
The way I see it is that let all teh stupid people self medacate maybe we will be get rid of a few, and hand hand out a couple more Darwin awards.
I personally use the Net for information that is not going to cost me my Life, House, or Family, or anything I find vastly important to my survival or success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Subject Given
Ps: you have never done porn. You always found pleasure in lying through your ass to make your miserable life sound more interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Check out http://opensecrets.org for more details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have to agree somewhat
The big problem is that people are taking things at face value and believing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have to agree somewhat
The big problem is that people are taking things at face value and believing them
These arguments are disingenuous. If the information is inaccurate then why don't you correct it? If you don't trust the information then why do you assume other people will?
Maybe increased freedom of information will weed out the quacks and the crooks in professionalism. Who says we need to have a central source of information for educating ourselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have to agree somewhat
The big problem is that people are taking things at face value and believing them
These arguments are disingenuous. If the information is inaccurate then why don't you correct it? If you don't trust the information then why do you assume other people will?
Maybe increased freedom of information will weed out the quacks and the crooks in professionalism. Who says we need to have a central source of information for educating ourselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at how much "amateurs" contribute
Just because you're not a so-called professional or expert doesn't mean you have nothing worth contributing. Amateurs have contributed quite a bit to modern life; heck, think of how many things were developed by accident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content
It's also quite amusing when a self-proclaimed expert declares everyone else to be an amateur. We can be sure his credentials qualify him to be a foremost authority on any given topic, including an assessment of his own expertise. Laughable.
Has everyone forgotten that Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always be.. that's the beauty of it.
Wikipedia does provide an area for the disputing of content (you can review the dispute and make up your own mind as to the truth of it). Regarding other articles, as part of the community, YOU are responsible for calling attention to errors you might find. Contribute!
Or would you prefer an 'expert', and trust that you're not being fed a propaganda piece? Personally I'd rather trust solid community content, it irons itself out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All Specious BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]