Category: web 2.0

Many of the “You”s are upset with Time magazine’s choice.

The blogosphere is aflame with ridicule for Time magazine’s choice for Person of the Year, “You,” an allusion to the explosion of user-generated content on the Web.

It feels as if many media types are undergoing a massive freakout, climbing all over themselves to declare the choice as pandering to the audience. “You” is certainly the most politically correct choice, and it’s sure to sell copies and flatter readers. But Time does not deserve ridicule for acknowledging the global culture change that came to a head in 2006.

Ask yourself this question: Would this cover have been truly appropriate in any previous year of human history?

Some were cheering for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it seems, just because he’s the gutsy choice — the evil guy who will surely cause regional conflict and canceled subscriptions. References to Time’s Hitler and Stalin covers abound. But boldness for boldness’ sake is just plain stupid. While Steve Safran at Lost Remote is correct in that Time‘s choices have seemed “wussified” this decade, this year’s choice is not the same situation as when the magazine lost its nerve and picked Rudy Giuliani over Osama bin Laden in the wake of Sept. 11.

Ahmadinejad hasn’t changed the way my family interacts. He hasn’t particularly given me a better understanding of the world. Nor has he helped end U.S. political leaders’ careers. Neither have Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or Hasan Nazrallah. Save for perhaps Nazrallah, none of them have even invaded anything or been responsible for killing any large amounts of people (that we know of). The bad guys of 2006 next to Stalin and Hitler are like lowly Igor next to Dr. Frankenstein’s infamy.

Donald Rumsfeld was an interesting choice, as was U.N. secretary Hu Jintao representing the rise of Chinese power. But the real face of the Iraq war is President Bush, who has already graced Time‘s Person of the Year cover, as has “The American Soldier.” Hu Jintao isn’t a big shot yet, so there’d be a collective “Huh?” upon seeing the cover in stores. If the guy croaked tomorrow, would the world care?

Let’s look at 2006: The “macaca moment,” when Virginia Sen. George Allen lost a Senate race after being caught on video uttering a racial slur. Mark Foley’s resignation, thanks to several blogs spreading the story about racy correspondence with underage pages. The incredible growth of the time the average person spends on the Web. Comedian Stephen Colbert’s infamous White House Correspondents Association dinner roast, made popular on the Web. Michael Richards’ racist rant, again spreading via the Web. The emergence of Wikipedia, an effort that harks back to the great library of Alexandria.

Marketwatch’s Jon Friedman called Time‘s choice “vague and wishy-washy.” Columbia Journalism Review’s Christian Vachon said the magazine has “insulted its readers.” The Detroit Free-Press‘ Brian Dickerson goes so far as to say Time has “lost its marbles.”

But the “You” concept has impacted nearly every industrialized corner of the world, from the wildly popular OhmyNews in South Korea to the McIntosh Mirror, a news site for a Florida town of 453 people.

In this case, the YouTube guys or Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales would have made a good alternative choice, if we wanted a clearly definable “person.” But being in the business of user-generated content, I understand that it’s really about the users doing the heavy lifting. Not Jimmy Wales, not the gatekeepers. A mirror on a cover is a brilliant way to illustrate that.

“You” may have been the safe choice. But it was an appropriate choice that will hold up to the scrutiny of the future.

Is there a possible trend brewing here? Yahoo! News announced it has nuked its message boards because they have been causing “a small number of vocal users to dominate the discussion.” The Arizona Daily Star recently zapped ts boards as well.

Nevertheless, the announcement also says Yahoo is working on some new features to improve the boards for a future launch date. I have to wonder, does killing the boards from time to time improve users’ behavior, or does it just get them angry and turn them away?

[Photo by fensterbme]

As newspapers increasingly ramp out Web 2.0 features, Ryan Sholin ponders whether we should be following MySpace’s example and start ramping out our own social networks.

I’d argue that, if we were to prioritize our efforts, we should be emulating Google before MySpace. Newspapers should be striving to catalog everything about their communities. Where are all the parks? Who’s who? Why is the city’s name what it is? Who’s the future A-Rod on the Little League team? Where am I more likely to get mugged?

This approach, while not as technology-centric as creating a web page index, is the essence of Google. That is, answering questions. Newspapers have the distinct advantage of having real people on the ground who know their communities, unlike many of the other soulless hyperlocal endeavors out there.

What we should be focusing on is producing ALL of our content in as flexible a format as possible to allow it to be syndicated and re-purposed into social networks, whether they be external or our own. If newspapers want to take a stab at creating the networks themselves, then they should by all means. But let’s focus on creating the best damn journalism out there, thinking harder about how we deliver it and balancing the “fun-to-write” journalism with gathering the information people truly need.

The Arizona Daily Star, apparently fed up with the army of trolls on its message boards, has delivered the online equivalent of capital punishment: it has shut down several of its boards.

The reason, from executive editor Bobbie Jo Buel:

“In the past month, though, more and more comments are violating our standards. Instead of offering constructive criticism, too many posts are just plain coarse.

While we created the reader comments feature to give readers a place to talk, StarNet is still our house. And our editors and staff simply do not want guests who make vulgar, abusive, obscene, defamatory and hateful comments. If you want to live in that kind of neighborhood, go create your own online forum.

[UPDATE: 12-2-06, 11:28 p.m. –  Some good discussion is going on in the comments.]

Would making users jump through a few hoops make your content more valuable and more viewed?

Amy Gahran from Poynter writes about an EmailWeb.us, an e-mail service that allows users to forgo an $18 fee by passing a quiz on the Gospel of Matthew. Whuzzah?! What Gahran points out is that this hoop jumping just might have some excellent applications for news site features:

“For instance, if you sell subscriptions to special mobile content (like live sports updates), you might offer free subscriptions to new subscribers who can answer 10 questions about your recent sports coverage (including columns).”

Would users respond more to a blurb that reads, “Take our Yankees quiz. The champs who pass get a special prize” instead of “Get Yankees text alerts.”

And I’ve had this idea floating around for a while now: What about a Flash graphic that makes you play a small game or answer some questions, and then rewards you with content? Might that be better in some cases than just throwing all the content at them from the get-go like everyone does now?

Think about video games for a second and how amazing it is to play today. Many players will spend an extra half-hour playing a game just so they can watch a new cutscene. And what do you get when you “beat the game?” More cool content. If you’re a fan of gambling games then you may want to play blackjack online, a very basic type of game that will make you think a lot, not just depending on luck to win.

It’s worth considering. Any thoughts on why this is totally stupid or just the neatest idea?

[Cute doggie image by skycaptaintwo]