Nov 082007
 

Lest any­one think that phys­i­cists don’t care about the real world, Bob Park pub­lishes a short weekly news­let­ter that touches on sub­jects ran­ging from sci­entif­ic hoaxes to incon­sist­en­cies in the way the U.S. Admin­is­tra­tion handles vari­ous issues. It mostly con­cen­trates on sci­ence and tech­no­logy, but not only. The Fri­day, Octo­ber 26, 2007 news­let­ter also dis­cusses the suc­cess­ful meth­ods WWII sol­diers used to inter­rog­ate Nazis, while the Fri­day, Novem­ber 2, 2007 news­let­ter includes the quote “John Mar­bur­ger, head of the White House sci­ence office, real­ized that the situ­ation she described was ser­i­ous; decis­ive action was needed at once — so he deleted half the report. ”

The tagline on the site is Opin­ions are the author’s and are not neces­sar­ily shared by the Uni­ver­sity, but they should be. I’ve been read­ing the news­let­ter for years and it’s always been interesting.

Pro­fess­or Park also wrote a book, Voo­doo Sci­ence: The Road from Fool­ish­ness to Fraud, that neatly debunks a lot of hoax (or mis­guided, to be more char­it­able) sci­ence in a read­able way.

Nov 082007
 

The social and col­lab­or­a­tion part of Web 2.0 mostly revolves around the con­cepts of social net­work­ing, user-gen­er­ated con­tent, and the long tail.

Social CloudSocial Cloud

Social net­work­ing is the idea that people can meet and talk and organ­ise their social lives using the Web instead of, or in addi­tion to, more tra­di­tion­al meth­ods such as talk­ing face to face, or on the phone. It’s an exten­sion of usen­et and bul­let­in boards that’s based on the web, with more fea­tures. Social net­work­ing sites tend to go through phases; every­one was into Orkut for a while, now it’s MySpace and Face­book, or Ravelry if you’re a knit­ter. Fea­tures and focus vary, but the idea of cre­at­ing an online com­munity remains the same.

User-gen­er­ated con­tent is the idea that non-pro­fes­sion­als can con­trib­ute con­tent. I don’t like the term much, so I’m going to use the vari­ant user-cre­ated con­tent to show that it’s a cre­at­ive pro­cess, not just some machine gen­er­at­ing con­tent. The concept of user-cre­ated con­tent isn’t new; the Web was first designed as a col­lab­or­a­tion plat­form, the read/write web. In prac­tic­al terms, how­ever, it was dif­fi­cult for those without lots of tech­nic­al know­ledge to pub­lish on the web. All these things like blog­ging and com­ment­ing that are now rel­at­ively easy for people to do wer­en’t, just a few years ago. Pre­vi­ously only a few people could make their opin­ions widely known, in prac­tice pro­fes­sion­als with access. Don’t for­get that one of the reas­ons Ben­jamin Frank­lin could make such a dif­fer­ence in the early years of the US was that he owned a print­ing press!

Now basic­ally every­one with access to the inter­net who’s inter­ested can pub­lish their opin­ions, their pho­tos, or their videos to their friends and the world. It’s easi­er to keep in touch with friends far away, or find out what life’s like in some far-off place, or con­trib­ute a snip­pet of know­ledge to Wiki­pe­dia. Some of these pub­lish­ers (blog­gers, com­menters, photo-upload­ers) have a large audi­ence, many have an audi­ence that is large enough for them (which may mean just the fam­ily, or just them­selves, or a few hun­dred strangers).

One of the down­sides of this “demo­crat­iz­a­tion”, as it’s some­times called, is that it can be hard to find the really good inform­a­tion or enter­tain­ment — you hear a lot about “cult of the ama­teur” and “90% of everything is crap”. Some of this is com­ing from those who are threatened by the avail­ab­il­ity of inform­a­tion from oth­er sources: journ­al­ists and news­pa­pers in par­tic­u­lar are right to be scared, since they’re now going to have to work harder to con­vince the world that they add value. Wheth­er the enter­tain­ment cre­ated by ama­teurs that’s avail­able on the web is bet­ter than that cre­ated by the mass enter­tain­ment industry depends on your view of how good a job the lat­ter does at find­ing and nur­tur­ing talent.

The long tail is anoth­er aspect of Web 2.0 that you hear about a lot. Book­sellers are a good example of how the long tail works: Where­as your aver­age book­seller, even Water­stones or Black­well’s, has maybe a few thou­sand or a few tens of thou­sands of books, an inter­net seller can have mil­lions. Although the com­par­is­on is per­haps not fair, since an inter­net book­seller, just like your loc­al book­seller, can order from the pub­lish­er and will usu­ally count that as being part of the invent­ory for brag­ging reas­ons. And, of course, you can always go to Pow­ell’s Books in Port­land, which claims to have over a mil­lion books phys­ic­ally in their store. It’s big; they hand out maps at the entrance so you don’t get lost.

The long-tail aspect is this: It turns out that most of the rev­en­ue does­n’t come from selling the Harry Pot­ter books, big sellers though those are, it’s from selling those books that aren’t indi­vidu­ally big sellers. The total volume of sales in those niche areas is lar­ger than the best-sellers. Oth­er com­pan­ies that make good use of this of course are eBay, where you can buy things that you can­’t get down­town, uptown, or poten­tially any­where in your town, and the video rent­al com­pany Net­flix, which rents out some 35,000 titles in the one mil­lion videos it sends out each day.

And, of course, the long tail applies to blogs and oth­er online sites. In oth­er words, no mat­ter how spe­cial­ised your blog is, someone out there in blog-read­ing land is likely to find it inter­est­ing. The big prob­lem is how those poten­tial read­ers find out about it.

One of a series on Web 2.0, taken from my talk at the CSW Sum­mer School in July 2007. Here’s the series intro­duc­tion. Com­ing up next: tech­nic­al aspects of Web 2.0

/* ]]> */