(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...So I came across this article, Wikipedia Spin Doctors Revealed, Wikipedia Spin Doctors Revealed, via my google news feed.
I find this an interesting idea of creating accountability through “knowing” who the editors are. On one level I think this flies in the face of the wikipedia system of somewhat anonymous editing. It raises some questions about conversational marketing - trying to track back who started a conversation. Does this change the value of a conversation knowing who started it? What if you don’t like the person or feel they have a vested interest in spinning the conversation?
I think that this is part of the change that is happening on the web - the accountability issue. Or the loss of anonymity on the web. This in part has been pushed to the fore by our governments efforts at getting internet companies to divulge their customers information, the tracking of their online movements and explorations. It is a truly interesting debate that raises all kinds of questions of privacy, liberty and state security. However openness is always more valuable in the long run then closed systems or conversations - at least that is my cursory thought.
It is always the danger of the minority (the spoilers) spoiling it for the majority (the non-spoilers).
Filed under: Wiki Strategy
Loading ...
In a worst case scenario this seems raise the risk of blackballing and witch hunts, but I believe the wikipedia-rati (if thats the correct word) will be able to check such behaviour. Ultimately accountability and openness should win out, perhaps will minor bumps at the start as the wiki culture adjusts.
This seems to boil down to three core questions:
1) will this increase accountability and the overall truth value of the wiki?
2) will folks still post in the same numbers as before?
3) how will this effect the readership?
I think it will dramatically improve one and three, while giving a small net bump to three. Anyone else have a different take?