I think judging the value of the expertise on the web is little bit more difficult than in f2f. In f2f environment, I usually relatively knew the source’s background or if we just meet, we do some short introduction first. In the web, the principle in how to judge may be the same (by knowing source’s background) but the techniques that were used may be different than in f2f because of web’s characteristic and limitation. The following are techniques that I usually used to review and ensure source’s validity and quality in the web:
- Who is the author? Knowing the background of the author is important to determine the quality of the articles. The author usually has attached their background information on their blog or wiki.
- How many articles have ever being made by the author? By knowing the number of articles that have been made, we can estimate the author’s expertise in the particular field.
- Knowing the articles’ rating. The higher ratings of the articles then the articles are also more reliable, because more people have read and reviewed it.
- Reading and reviewing reader comment in author’s blog or wiki. Just like my previous entry in my blog. Readers make comments in blog or wiki to give opinions, critiques about the articles. Reviewing those comments are helpful to determine the article’s validity.
Some people (the pessimist and criticizer) will look web 2.0 and its aggregate (wiki, blog, etc) as a junk yard where people can write virtually anything without control and censorship. This assumption is not entirely true. Different with the early generation of web which more like a monolog, Web 2.0 enables a dialog between users. People can praise and criticize, correct or even mock what people have posted in web 2.0 sites and in this activities, some control and censorship may happen .
It is true that Wikipedia has often become victims of vandalism. Some entries also being written carelessly and / or use un-trusted reference. However, the science journal, Nature has published a study in 2005 that in term of accuracy, Wikipedia has the same level with the well known and well established Encyclopedia Britannica. A study from IBM in 2004 found that articles in Wikipedia that became victims of vandalism usually were being corrected in a short time and even faster than the time that were needed by the vandal to get an action.
Unlike Wikipedia, which is the result of collaborative works, Blog is one person (or group of contributor) works. It may consist of simple things but sometimes consist of valuable information as well. Just like Wikipedia, the information in blog may inaccurate, misleading, miss cite or even violate the copyright. But, if we do believe with ‘the wisdom of crowds’ then self correction will run naturally and automatically using discussion and / or reader’s comments.
Now the question “Are there any control in web 2.0 world ?” can be clearly answered “Yes, There are some control in web 2.0 world but in different ways that we knew before in real world”
The world is getting smaller and is in our hand without any limits. The presence of one of the most popular social networking sites, Facebook has strengthened what Friedman stated in his popular book, The World is Flat (see the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Is_Flat ). You can easily get connected and collaborated with other people around the world.
I have joined Facebook two years ago after getting several invitations from my friends and this was my first experience using social networking site. Just like what my friends have told before, indeed, it was fun and enjoyable. I can met again with my old friend who had not meet directly since 15 years ago which is nearly impossible without facebook’s help. Although I’m not relatively active in facebook, it was pleasures to follow some groups, read and make comments to my friends pages. Overall, Facebook gives me a lot of positive experiences although I do realized that in some way, facebook gives the negative effect for me as well.
Based on my observation in `facebook` world, I noted several negative aspect of Facebook (I called it ‘The Dark Side of Facebook’) that may harm and bother people if not properly used:
- Broadcast effect: Facebook has wall facility that enables people to read every comment and dialog that are written in our wall. As each person can read and make comment on what is written on a wall this may break the privacy. The best way of using the wall is by learning and making a proper privacy setting. Some people have completely shut down the wall feature, other allow their wall to be written but hiding the reply messages, etc.
- Self-Explore effect: It cannot be avoided that in the end, Facebook will be the most effective showcase of our personality . Facebook is the place where narcism can be happened easily. Some people can manage their image and personality’s perfection but some cannot. The best way that we can do is to be our self and do not pretend to be a perfect person.
- Addiction effect: It is hard to deny that facebook within its features can make people addicted. Facebook can create social autism which makes people are so busy with their Facebook pages and forget with their real social life.
- Intelligence effect: Offering easy access to the information, Facebook can be an effective and efficient ‘secret agent’ to investigate other people and somehow this may bring some sad stories to us due to misused of Facebook. Selecting and investigating people when try to add and confirm as a Facebook friends is the best way to hinder it.
Nevertheless, don’t be afraid to use social networking sites. It always depend on its end user (man behind the gun, not the gun itself). As long as we know the limits and appropriately use it, we can gain a lot of positive aspects. We can use Facebook or other social network sites to enrich our knowledge, to support our job and daily life or just using it for refreshing tools. It’s depend on you and what you need.