Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
captain normal writes:
An essay by Robert W.Lucky in IEEE Spectrum, 'Who is the Crowd?', discusses how the internet has provided the means for many people to contribute to knowledge.
From the essay:
I look at my computer screen and imagine all the murmuring voices behind it, clamoring for attention. There is almost a mystical presence out there, not from aliens but from something almost as thrilling and unexpected--a new presence that has been brought about as a consequence of the enveloping architecture of the Internet.
...
The crowd has wisdom, knowing things that may not be known to individuals. It has sentiments, beliefs, and feelings that can be abstracted and analyzed. Moreover, it has the power to affect the real physical world...Small armies of volunteers and paid contributors can be assembled on a moment's notice to work on projects.
I find this very much like this current project here on SoylentNews. This is a 'Crowd' thing. Not a top down organization like the old 19th ~ 20th century organization model."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by akinliat on Thursday February 20 2014, @04:05PM
You once could have said the same thing about /., though, and that changed virtually overnight. The problem is that while a crowd can be very successful in putting something together, they're almost always vulnerable if one of those top-down organizations decides they want to take over. A successful long-term crowd project requires a lot of consistent effort from a lot of diverse people, and it's not pretty.
Ultimately, I think that was what prompted the Beta changes to /. They wanted to "simplify" away all the features that made the community so contentious, because having people actually expressing opinions and arguing was just so ... messy.
(Score: 1) by dbot on Thursday February 20 2014, @04:29PM
I disagree. I don't think the intention was malicious at all. More likely someone new (to the organization) had to leave their fingerprint on it.
Thoughts about discussion on the site, I'm sure, were absent.
(Score: 1) by akinliat on Thursday February 20 2014, @04:48PM
Oh no, I'm not saying there was any malice in it whatsoever. I don't doubt for a minute that they honestly believed it to be an improvement. It's just a that there are a large number of people who view any public argument as objectionable. By making the site as bland and boring as possible, I'm sure they believed they were making it "more accessible to a wider audience."
Personally, I find such an attitude purely moronic, but I imagine that they'd find me a disruptive and undesirable influence, and are perfectly happy to see me gone.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by regift_of_the_gods on Thursday February 20 2014, @11:12PM
I suspect that the motivation behind Slashdot beta is to be able to visually integrate ads and sponsored material with the regular content, just as many trad news sites are doing. And the new owners have undoubtedly noticed that nearly all of the top circulation technology sites have adopted a magazine look and feel: techcrunch, geekwire, recode, arstechnica, wired, engadget, etc. That's why it hasn't died yet, although I suspect the they temporarily reduced the frequency of the beta redirects after Soylentnews and Perens went on line to try to prevent a mass exodus.
(Score: 1) by Kell on Friday February 21 2014, @04:29AM
+1 insightful, +1 agree
Scientists point out problems. Engineers fix them.