Comments on: Tech trends and predictions 2007. http://dylan.tweney.com/2007/01/05/tech-trends-2007/ If you're bored, you're not paying attention Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:50:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Scot Hackerhttp://dylan.tweney.com/2007/01/05/tech-trends-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-2918 Scot Hacker Tue, 09 Jan 2007 06:54:23 +0000 http://dylan.tweney.com/2007/01/05/tech-trends-2007/#comment-2918 Ah, you're right - I misinterpreted your post somewhat. Yes, the situation is very different for a wiki without critical mass behind it. Wikipedia has already resorted to locking certain entries (those that become political footbalss), and I can see similar happening to more entries as time goes on.Of course, not every wiki-based site has the need for total accuracy that Wikipedia has. For example, sites that collect home improvement or how-to information. Sure, these may contain some bad advice, but on whole, they'll still be useful resources. Ah, you’re right – I misinterpreted your post somewhat. Yes, the situation is very different for a wiki without critical mass behind it. Wikipedia has already resorted to locking certain entries (those that become political footbalss), and I can see similar happening to more entries as time goes on.

Of course, not every wiki-based site has the need for total accuracy that Wikipedia has. For example, sites that collect home improvement or how-to information. Sure, these may contain some bad advice, but on whole, they’ll still be useful resources.

]]> By: Dylanhttp://dylan.tweney.com/2007/01/05/tech-trends-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-2909 Dylan Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:38:06 +0000 http://dylan.tweney.com/2007/01/05/tech-trends-2007/#comment-2909 Scot, I wrote that trend prediction fairly carefully: I'm not saying Wikipedia is half assed (though some of its content certainly is) but rather that many sites which attempt to imitate Wikipedia's approach will inevitably become filled with half-assed content.The studies comparing Wikipedia to other sources are controversial (see <a href="http://dylan.tweney.com/2006/03/24/wikipedias-reliability/" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia's reliability</a>, and <a href="http://dylan.tweney.com/2006/03/26/nature-mag-cooked-wikipedia-study/" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia study: cooked?</a>) and its accuracy varies wildly depending on what topic it's covering, and on who is contributing. Frankly, as Wikipedia evolves I think it will have to develop academic-like methods of peer review and expert evaluation, or else it will become swamped under a tidal wave of spam and of idiots. And Wikipedia has the benefit of a large community of very committed, good-hearted people working on it. What will happen to other wikis that don't have this big, excellent community?As I wrote recently, a vast collection of slightly-clued-in people are likely to come up with great answers, but a bunch of slightly or totally clueless people are likely to come up with garbage. (<a href="http://dylan.tweney.com/2006/12/07/the-idiocy-of-crowds/" rel="nofollow">The Idiocy of Crowds</a>) By: Scot Hackerhttp://dylan.tweney.com/2007/01/05/tech-trends-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-2907 Scot Hacker Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:14:57 +0000 http://dylan.tweney.com/2007/01/05/tech-trends-2007/#comment-2907 Dylan, I'm surprised by your harsh assessment of the quality of Wikipedia. No, it's not perfect, but the research I've seen has shown it to be roughly on par accuracy-wise with dead-tree encyclopedias. Not to mention 10 or 20 times more complete / comprehensive / up to date. Sure, wikis are subject to flaws, but mistakes tend to be short-lived, and wiki advantages, in my mind, clearly outweigh any downsides. The collective intelligence model works when people weigh in with their expertise, doesn't work when people weigh in cluelessly. So far wikipedia seems to have shown that it's possible to harness the clued-in side of collective intelligence, with stunning results. Skepticism is always in order, but I sure wouldn't call it half-assed. Dylan, I’m surprised by your harsh assessment of the quality of Wikipedia. No, it’s not perfect, but the research I’ve seen has shown it to be roughly on par accuracy-wise with dead-tree encyclopedias. Not to mention 10 or 20 times more complete / comprehensive / up to date. Sure, wikis are subject to flaws, but mistakes tend to be short-lived, and wiki advantages, in my mind, clearly outweigh any downsides. The collective intelligence model works when people weigh in with their expertise, doesn’t work when people weigh in cluelessly. So far wikipedia seems to have shown that it’s possible to harness the clued-in side of collective intelligence, with stunning results. Skepticism is always in order, but I sure wouldn’t call it half-assed.

]]> By: Labnotes » Rounded Corners - 91http://dylan.tweney.com/2007/01/05/tech-trends-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-2906 Labnotes » Rounded Corners - 91 Sun, 07 Jan 2007 06:50:53 +0000 http://dylan.tweney.com/2007/01/05/tech-trends-2007/#comment-2906 [...] Apology accepted. Dylan F. Tweney has an interesting prediction for 2007, about the lack of quality from companies that have too many products with too many features: “At least one of these companies will apologize in 2007 for having made a serious product design mistake.” [...] [...] Apology accepted. Dylan F. Tweney has an interesting prediction for 2007, about the lack of quality from companies that have too many products with too many features: “At least one of these companies will apologize in 2007 for having made a serious product design mistake.” [...]

]]>