redotted from: McToonish

This is a very useful layout of some concepts we've been discussing internally for some time. Online participation broken down into 4 categories (consumer, commentor, contributor, commentator). The movement up towards the commentator is a worthy goal but it IS a very small percentage of the online community.

Interesting blog post about making web-based group tools "not suck." It's pretty well thought-out for someone who is just firing off an opinion. It's an explanation from someone who is in a lot of groups of what he wants in an online group management tool. Here's a hint,it's quite a lot and all done as "simply as possible..."

Quoted: [...] but someone should be able to build a service that is flexible enough to give people choice and tailor the service to their own needs. Not every group needs a web page at their own domain to post pictures on and not every group needs a listserv, but the fact that there are exactly zero web services that offer both is just ridiculous. There's a huge hole in the market and its being filled by Yahoo! Groups, Evite, Typepad, snot, and duct tape, among countless other web services that accomplish one narrow task.

Looks like an interesting site and an interesting free service. I want to check it out in more detail later.

Quoted: Chain Reading - Book recommendations and suggestions for people who read too much, by people who read too much

Quoted: The Life & Times of a Digital Entrepreneur

That's a really interesting piece and it's great that at least somebody is trying to assess the potential darkside of the Web 2.0 movement. All of his arguments have really left me with larger questions though:

- Does everyone truly have access to Encyclopedia Britannica at their fingertips? Should we be protecting an old publishing model that historically has put knowledge in the hands of more privileged citizens? Sure you can get access to the encyclopedias for free at your local library but that's a pretty big difference than having it at your beck and call. I understand that internet access is still highly privileged but the demographics are pointing towards a leveling over time. Access points are much more prevalant than libraries.

- While wikipedia is more than 5 years old (as the article states), the age of participation is just getting underway and the tool has just gone mainstream. At high enough usage volume, does such a resource potentially surpass Britannica in terms of quality, timeliness, and data access? Are all three of these factors equally weighted?

Pareto efficiency