Putting a description to the changing media scene
Putting a description to the changing media scene is an easy thing to do. For a good time now, ‘Web 2.0’ would do. It’s in upheaval, and something new is coming, etc. Not to different then, than Web Point One. From the Get-Go there was a democratization in the Internet. And an anti-commercialism that coincided neatly with a general sense that, if you could copy it - it should be free. [Copy meaning with a button push not with the old means, such as a tracing [paper].] And there has been a pretty skilled literary bunch ready to disgorge on topics too. People have said Jack you write good criticism – you should be paid for this stuff. Well, one person said that.
Anyway, I just post it, and don’t have time to do the hustle. To actually do battle in the real forum of ideas, which is a pretty commercial realm. I got a friend who does great reviews of film, and probably draws a few useful hits to his Webmaster, but recompense is promotional DVDs. When I was on the B.U. News in the 70s, we had a critic staff that was solely driven by such freebies [which I tried to put an end too, which was a mistake; I was Arts Editor for about three months and I ended up gutting the section with my sense of what was proper]. But I ramble.
The point is that the Web is not truly paying for its content – some would say the NYRB doesn’t do that either, that it’s the higher educational system that pays the freight. What’s the point?
Yesterday’s NYTimes Science section discusses InnoCentive, and other Web-based efforts to tap the wisdom of crowds, sometimes using sweepstakes, sometimes using coupons. “InnoCentives” aside, the point is there are people out there who are ready to get involved who might solve problems such as how proteins fold. John Seeley Brown is quoted, explaining.
This reflects “a huge shift in popular culture, from consuming to participating.” I think this is central to the phenomena of Web 2.0, which for a guy who made his living grinding out copy for 25 years, is a little hard to get his arms around. We expect to pay when we consume, but not when we participate.
The commercial leg of the stool is being kicked out of late - but it’s not really as if the magic lucre mercury is moving from the print side of the ledger to he web side.
Addenda: There is a lot of good stuff in this article about the effect of the crowd on research, specifically on protein folding via http://foldit.it.
Anyway, I just post it, and don’t have time to do the hustle. To actually do battle in the real forum of ideas, which is a pretty commercial realm. I got a friend who does great reviews of film, and probably draws a few useful hits to his Webmaster, but recompense is promotional DVDs. When I was on the B.U. News in the 70s, we had a critic staff that was solely driven by such freebies [which I tried to put an end too, which was a mistake; I was Arts Editor for about three months and I ended up gutting the section with my sense of what was proper]. But I ramble.
The point is that the Web is not truly paying for its content – some would say the NYRB doesn’t do that either, that it’s the higher educational system that pays the freight. What’s the point?
Yesterday’s NYTimes Science section discusses InnoCentive, and other Web-based efforts to tap the wisdom of crowds, sometimes using sweepstakes, sometimes using coupons. “InnoCentives” aside, the point is there are people out there who are ready to get involved who might solve problems such as how proteins fold. John Seeley Brown is quoted, explaining.
This reflects “a huge shift in popular culture, from consuming to participating.” I think this is central to the phenomena of Web 2.0, which for a guy who made his living grinding out copy for 25 years, is a little hard to get his arms around. We expect to pay when we consume, but not when we participate.
The commercial leg of the stool is being kicked out of late - but it’s not really as if the magic lucre mercury is moving from the print side of the ledger to he web side.
Addenda: There is a lot of good stuff in this article about the effect of the crowd on research, specifically on protein folding via http://foldit.it.
Comments