The researchers, Andrew G. West and Insup Lee, wondered what content on the enormously popular Web site could be so troubling that Wikipedia administrators would decide to remove it forever. “Wikipedia is at that paramount example of open-source transparency,” Mr. Lee said. “So when you see them behaving in a nontransparent manner, you want to see what motivates them to do this.”
Copyright infringement was the most common reason Wikipedia stated for deleting material, Mr. West and Mr. Lee found.
It’s actually a really cool question. Wikipedia thrives on almost militant transparency and hands-off policies. So the things that make them go non-transparent and hands-on should reveal a lot about their most closely held values.
But it maybe doesn’t. Sure, one of the big ones is libel. But at the top is copyrighted material. The motivations for those two are very different: one is kind of altruistic, the other is more closely tied to compliance with the law, not utopianism. I just think that’s interesting.
Despite users’ curiosity around Google+, it seems like most Google+ users just wanted to see the platform before returning to Facebook. ‘Google has lost over 60 per cent of its active users on its social network Google+, according to a report by Chitika Insights, raising questions about how well it is doing against its rival, Facebook. Despite the clear interest in an alternative to Facebook, it does not appear that the people joining are staying around and actively using the web site. Google’s problem is not getting users in the first place, it seems, but rather keeping them after they have arrived. For now it appears that a lot of users are merely curious about Google+, but return to the tried and tested format of Facebook when the lustre fades. The problem is that Facebook is not going to rest on its laurels while Google attempts to get the advantage. Already it has added features inspired by Google+, particularly in terms of improving the transparency of its privacy options.
It’s also worth reading this rant from a Plus engineer about the platform’s shortcomings. It’s really smart and hits on probably the fundamental problems that make Facebook a better place for the kinds of things that people expect their social networking sites to do.
“I love that when Occupy Wall Street was denied permission to use bullhorns, demonstrators came up with an alternative straight out of Monty Python, or maybe “The Flintstones”: Have everyone within earshot repeat a speaker’s words, verbatim and in unison, so the whole crowd can hear. It works—and sounds tremendously silly. Protest movements that grow into something important tend to have a sense of humor.”—
Eugene Robinson (via azspot). I love a good analog solution to a problem. I don’t really have a TON to say about the whole Occupy Wall Street thing. It’s a general sort of mish-mash of ideas the same way that the Tea Party is a general mish-mash of ideas. It’s maybe more fun, and maybe more supported by the actual facts of how our society works, but it’s still really just a mish-mash. And it’s also not really doing anything that similar protest movements have done already, either in foreign countries during the summer of constant dictator-ousting or in our own country during the anti-union legislation protests that cropped up all over the midwest. There are even huge similarities between this and the Rally to Restore Sanity that the Daily Show put on not too long ago.
In short, the only novelty here might be the size of the protesting group, not the ideas or the structure or even the methods. But hey, cool story!