Web 2.0 Panel Discussion - Does the "Wiki" Model Work?

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=1188

A panel of internet cultural critics debates the successes and failures of "Web 2.0," using Wikipedia and its popular "wiki" model as an example.

-----

"The Cult of the Amateur" with speakers Andrew Keen and Ori Brafman. Mary Hodder moderates.

Andrew Keen is the author of the book, "The Cult of the Amateur: How the Democratization of the Digital World is Assaulting Our Economy, Our Culture, and Our Values." He is the founder and former CEO of Audiocafe.com and is considered a leading contemporary critic of the internet. Andrew is currently the Founder and Chief Executive of afterTV LLC.

Mary Hodder is an information architect and interaction designer for several web service companies with social media sites. She works with companies in open source, photo sharing and blog aggregation, was at Technorati, and recently completed a survey of the current state of research and development in academia in the area of New Media for the American Press Institute. She is a blogger at Napsterization (napsterization.org/stories/) and an original author at bIPlog (the first UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism blog, on the topic of intellectual property, security and privacy).

Ori Brafman is the co-author of the book "The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations." Born in Israel and raised in Texas, Ori Brafman has been a lifelong entrepreneur. Ori holds a BA in Peace and Conflict Studies from UC Berkeley and an MBA from Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business.

When he was still in college, he co-founded Vegan Action, which successfully launched a network with thirty-six national and international chapters. He brought vegan foods into numerous college dining halls. Ori co-founded Global Peace Networks, which catalyzed a network of CEOs working on conflict resolution and economic development in Africa and the Middle East.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• editing
• editors
• pamela
• anderson
• arendt
• wikimedia
• intellectual
• criticism
• media
• social
• networks
• culture
• interaction
• foratv
• fora.tv
• fora
• tv

[cjrisi88]

what a moron

[MrNiceHk]

A complete tool

[deth12345a]

a fiiting context would be a wikipedia for artists, edited by experts and professionnals on showbusness. But again, to make it credible, you have to pay them

[PrintScrn12]

Importance of a topic is not merely a result of the number of lines. Having an extensive article on Pamela Anderson does not make her important. Of course you have to define in what way someone is important. If someone is looking at who is popular or important in terms of TV or modern culture Pamela would be very important. You need a context for importance.

[patnmax]

unfortunately, i was just reading the "video blog" article on wikipedia and it's pretty useless and out of date.

[finalChoice]

i don't find it particularly strange that tom cruise is on more pictures than stephen hawking. why should i mind tits getting more attention than brains. unfortunately the guy on the right is intelleigently stupid. wikipedia as a concept is not about giving morally weighted information, it is about giving wide information. i find the guy boring, arrogant and very hard to follow.

[andysteggles]

Mary is great... very calm and speaks well.

[entropysounds]

First of all, I dont think the first responder gives youth enough credit. Second, it's not as if people are instantly given credit because something is written about them. It's a dictionary, you search for what you need information about. You don't systematically go through all articles and base your "credit" ranking about who has more stuff written about them

[entropysounds]

I once had a vision that Wikipedia was going to be like the don't panic book from "The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy," as the source of all knowledge in the universe. Instead, people unable to use pictures and words as an attempt merely to explain the real picture or writing, limitation on information access, self proclaimed cyber police, people that think they are legal experts on copyright law, bots that delete and edit legitimate material, opinion wars, and other limiting action.

[OddEye83]

This people in this debate dont understand the basis on which Wikipedia was created. Wikipedia is meant to be a encyclopedia for the people, users define what is relevant knowledge in our modern times, and not what hot-headed intellectuals like the man on the far right think is relevant knowledge. It is meant to be a reflection of our society, and not of our elite, that's what's really great about it.