16 of 21

Write now Article Tools

WHY I WON'T BE CONTRIBUTING TO WIKIHOW: Social Media, Common Ownership of Content, and the Lowest Common Denominator.

I've really never contributed to one of these "social media" sites, but what little experience I've had has convinced me that it's not worth my time to contribute or use it.

Andy Rutledge has a post about how social media can be boring and devolve into mediocrity, and says it better than I can:

http://www.andyrutledge.co m/anti-social-media.php

"Medioc rity is the only possible result of a wide sampling of opinion or input. The only idea that can survive such a mechanism is one consistent with the lowest common denominator. The mob works to ensure that all other results are weeded out. Now, we might think that it is the highest common denominator that is promoted in this environment, but it's just not so. The "highest" anything is largely held by the masses as being discriminatory and elitist. So only the lowest common denominator wins out. The point is that in this sort of environment excellence does not survive.

Excellence is not the sum of opinions. Excellence is not born of consensus. Excellence is by its very nature something far outside the average. In fact, not even good is found in the average. Average is comfortable. Average requires no great effort. Average requires nothing exceptional. Average anything is..., well, just mediocre."

A great example is "wikiHow." While the editorial process does work by some objective standards (e.g., censoring hate speech, profanity, and correcting obvious spelling and grammatical errors), just a brief look at just about any article's revision history tells you that basis and personal preference far too often wins the day when it comes to what's finally left after "everyone" has had their say.

Rather than a process that works to improve articles, the "everybody decides" approach is really nothing more than personal censorship based on "feelings" about what one does or doesn't like, what one "feels" is relevant or not. While some editors make good calls, most seem to be self appointed, self-important "keepers of the gate" - and this is the problem, the "Tragedy Of the Commons:" with no hard-won, earned objective editorial credentials in a specific area of expertise, with editorial guidelines that are for the most part vague and broadly defined, and with no editorial accountability (at least none that I know of), what's left is . . .

mediocrity.

Not useless, but watered down, less than it could be, uninspired 'lowest common denominator' "advice."

Apparently, wikiHow has been set up as a for-profit company - but is not making a profit, at least at the time of this article posting (05 . 14 . 2007):

http://www.wikihow.com/W ikiHow:Is-wikiHow-a-Non-Profit

and that's too bad . . . but it should come as no surprise as to why.

Learn more about this author, Christopher Calliope.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Understanding Web 2.0?
We want to hear your view. Write now!