Does the Internet need a health warning?
Or at least an accuracy warning? Publishing anything on the Internet is incredibly easy, without the checks and balances and editorial control applied in the traditional media. That's part of its beauty, but it comes with some risks. That means that you need to take care in how you use the words you'll find, and sometimes corroborate your sources in the way a journalist would before he published anything. Hear are some examples of what I mean from major to minor.
Wikipedia is a really excellent resource. The encyclopaedia written and kept up to date by us. However, it is not perfect and contains widely publicised inaccuracies. There was quite a furore back in December. Wikipedia's own pages now explain the issue:
The John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy occurred after an anonymous editor posted a hoax in the Wikipedia entry for John Seigenthaler Sr. in May 2005. In September, Victor S. Johnson, Jr., an old friend of Seigenthaler's, discovered the entry, which suggested that Seigenthaler may have had a role in the assassinations of both John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy.
As you might imagine, this generated a lot of heat. Danah Boyd on Many 2 Many tells some more about the story, and it has led to some changes in editorial procedure at Wikipedia. In some areas the resource is quite amazing, but in others you need to take care. My football team, West Ham United, is listed, but until a few days ago it was described as a semi professional team (original entry clearly written by a Spurs, Arsenal or Chelsea supporter!) but the page has just been updated by some Happy Hammer - thank heavens.
Back on 3rd January, Robert Scoble caused a stir from his blog by castigating his own company, Microsoft, for taking down Zhao Jing's blog site in China after government pressure, and then backtracking on his comments. Corante has a good analysis of the events.
To get away from assassinated presidents and global politics, on a more mundane footing I recently referred to a comparison of blogging software in my "insider's guide to blogging", only to be told by a colleague that there are inaccuracies in the chart. Whether this is because things have changed since the time the author penned the article, or because of her lack of knowledge, I don't know. However, for me it is a lesson learned to take care, issue disclaimers where appropriate, and check my facts like any good reporter. As with many things it's caveat emptor. Oh, and that's one you can look up on Wikipedia and get the right answer.
Powered By Qumana
posted by Unknown at 21:15
2 Comments:
Facts...they're a movable feast at the best of times David - far more important in my opinion to get balance in arguments that rely on facts.
I deliberately don't do that at times (and you know when those are!) but I make it very clear I have an axe to grind.
But then what is the customer to make of all of this? This is where the qualitative is much more powerful
If people ask, I gladly tell them I got off TypePad because of their crappy service. Goodman Jones in their case study were crystal clear about the cost benefits of moving off VPN to SaaS - when you look it's not just cost but benefit to customers. That's the thing people want to hear about.
That's not to dismiss facts altogether because people do need comfort in knowing for instance that Twinfield has 10K customers in the Netherlands and that it's been given the OK by BDO. But those are secondary to the qualitative, the narrative.
I agree with you completely that facts are secondary to the analysis and argument, which is the part that the Internet (and blogosphere) is so good at. And it is truly democratic to the extent that everyone has a voice, but that the voices which contribute most usefully or positively to the debate will attract the larger audiences. Or to put it another way - you can tell who the leaders are because they have followers. And your right about the customer's voice being the most powerful sales message too.
But your 10k fact is already out of date. We now have 17,500 users of Twinfield (mostly in The Netherlands at present) which is 13,500 paying customers and 4,000 non-paying users under special arrangements for educational establishments and accounting practices.
Post a Comment
<< Home