One of the principles of Web 2.
0 is the trust to the users, who are both like users and authors and interested in quality of the co-produced project.
As the proverb says, "Do not spit into the well, it will be useful for drink a water.
" However, experience shows that ones who want to flood the network with spam, trojans and viruses do not become less.
Usually, when searching for material on a given topic user is guided by two parameters: how close found material to topic of his interest and how authoritative the author.
Finding out who wrote this or that text, the user (if he is a professional in the study area) usually knows who is worth reading, and who is not.
Freeware of collective content - it's obvious dignity.
However, we know that the more relevant, structured and reliable information, than it is increasingly becoming a commodity.
Many analytical agencies earn big money just by selling information.
In a society where information is a commodity, inevitably there is a desire not to publish free of charge something that can be sold for money.
Obviously, the user can not apply to Wikipedia, as, for example, Encyclopedia Britannica (where texts have authors and editors taking personal responsibility for its quality), but information there will be charged to a certain limit.
In order to get the full article you have to pay.
Even to get a temporary free access, you need to register and, consequently, spend some time.
Does resources such as Britannica are losing its relevance by virtue of the fact that not being updated by users around the world? In an interview with The Guardian, Ted Pappas, Britannica reference materials editor, said that he sees no threat from Wikipedia: creators of Wikipedia based on the fact that the gradual improvement will lead to perfection, but this premise is not entirely proven.
" But even if the editors of the Britannica say they see no threat from Wikipedia, - it is likely a slyness.
The quality of articles in Britannica are likely to be higher than in Wikipedia, but the factor of being free, timeliness, completeness, and ability (with less risk to themselves) to use the materials of "collective intelligence" without citation leads to the fact that Wikipedia has long surpassed Britannica in popularity.
If the texts are subjective, it would seem, there is no problem with photos.
Alas, it is not.
Photos and videos are being created and edited as easily as text, and today is impossible to be sure that the picture is not drawn in a graphics editor.
Therefore, collectively generated image banks, such as Flickr, where no one bears responsibility for the authenticity imprinted on the photo fact, have a relative value too.
All these disadvantages of collective authorship listed here is not to denigrate the social services.
Other way, a review of resources made in the article indicates that its working and bring undeniable benefits.
We just need a good understanding of the fact that new social services have both advantages and disadvantages.
Democratic content creation system allows broad segments of Internet users to discuss, provides unprecedented coverage of topics, provides a quick reaction to it, and instant discussion, but does not eliminate deficiencies mentioned above.
0 is the trust to the users, who are both like users and authors and interested in quality of the co-produced project.
As the proverb says, "Do not spit into the well, it will be useful for drink a water.
" However, experience shows that ones who want to flood the network with spam, trojans and viruses do not become less.
Usually, when searching for material on a given topic user is guided by two parameters: how close found material to topic of his interest and how authoritative the author.
Finding out who wrote this or that text, the user (if he is a professional in the study area) usually knows who is worth reading, and who is not.
Freeware of collective content - it's obvious dignity.
However, we know that the more relevant, structured and reliable information, than it is increasingly becoming a commodity.
Many analytical agencies earn big money just by selling information.
In a society where information is a commodity, inevitably there is a desire not to publish free of charge something that can be sold for money.
Obviously, the user can not apply to Wikipedia, as, for example, Encyclopedia Britannica (where texts have authors and editors taking personal responsibility for its quality), but information there will be charged to a certain limit.
In order to get the full article you have to pay.
Even to get a temporary free access, you need to register and, consequently, spend some time.
Does resources such as Britannica are losing its relevance by virtue of the fact that not being updated by users around the world? In an interview with The Guardian, Ted Pappas, Britannica reference materials editor, said that he sees no threat from Wikipedia: creators of Wikipedia based on the fact that the gradual improvement will lead to perfection, but this premise is not entirely proven.
" But even if the editors of the Britannica say they see no threat from Wikipedia, - it is likely a slyness.
The quality of articles in Britannica are likely to be higher than in Wikipedia, but the factor of being free, timeliness, completeness, and ability (with less risk to themselves) to use the materials of "collective intelligence" without citation leads to the fact that Wikipedia has long surpassed Britannica in popularity.
If the texts are subjective, it would seem, there is no problem with photos.
Alas, it is not.
Photos and videos are being created and edited as easily as text, and today is impossible to be sure that the picture is not drawn in a graphics editor.
Therefore, collectively generated image banks, such as Flickr, where no one bears responsibility for the authenticity imprinted on the photo fact, have a relative value too.
All these disadvantages of collective authorship listed here is not to denigrate the social services.
Other way, a review of resources made in the article indicates that its working and bring undeniable benefits.
We just need a good understanding of the fact that new social services have both advantages and disadvantages.
Democratic content creation system allows broad segments of Internet users to discuss, provides unprecedented coverage of topics, provides a quick reaction to it, and instant discussion, but does not eliminate deficiencies mentioned above.