OR Google Sidewiki: Danger?
Jeff Jarvis has a debate going over at buzzmachine.com.
He and a host of others seem to think they've somehow lost control with the launch of Sidewiki, that Google just hijacked all the juicy future user-generated content that would otherwise plump their personal domains.
This view feels like an odd mix of insecurity and hubris. It shows zero confidence in authors/publishers being interesting enough to keep an audience engaged and participating when that audience suddenly finds there's another place to type.
Wait... there have always been other places to type, other conversations. Even the most loyal reader/contributor reads/contributes to other conversations (sometimes simultaneously with browser windows side-by-side - loyalty and promiscuity are not mutually exclusive on the Web).
If what you have to say is interesting, people will continue to talk to you. If you're LUCKY, they may even talk about what you have to say in other conversations. Maybe in Sidewiki. If what you have to say is not interesting (or inflammatory or abusive), good luck.
If an individual or entity makes a public statement free to anyone via the Web, I believe any and all reactions should be publicly stated (if desired) at no cost on the spot. Many sites still operate under the old print paradigm of one-way communication and make no provision for public user response. We're well past the days of one-way. Other sites require membership which requires the payment of valuable demographic goodies and/or personal contact info. That may be a good business model, but in social, conversational terms, it's extremely impolite.
So, let'em have Sidewiki. I firmly believe the audience at large has thoughts and opinions enough to fill every available channel to capacity. They'll fill them with suggestions and praise, corrections, indignation and bile (and spam). It will get messy. So? Clutter can be adjusted for. It could get ugly. Welcome to the Web.
Fear of trolls, prejudice, unfair competition, grudges, pettiness, hate and other human sins does nothing to dispel them. Bringing such filth into the light and up to the surface may make for easier cleanup.
With every contributor also acting as moderator, Sidewiki should be self-correcting. Posts will reach dominance through consensus (and a little algorithmic help).
Sidewiki isn't just "another" conversation. And it isn't an evil Google-devised content sinkhole. If Google has gained more control, it's only after offering every single individual a new degree of personal control over our collective conversation via this peer-to-peer-to-peer, dynamic, context-sensitive community of interest.
It seems to me the only thing lost with Sidewiki is the ability to pretend contrary views don't exist (ha ha Foxnews).
OR maybe I'm wrong. It's really hard to tell sometimes with Google. They're shady.
Link to this entry as posted on buzzmachine...
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/09/25/sidewiki-what-google-should-do/#comment-401937
