Cultivating intellectual discourse on the Internet

Web 2.0 has revolutionized the Internet, yet it still has a vastly untapped potential. With the rise of multi-billion dollar social networking applications like Facebook and MySpace, or the explosion of sharing utilities like Digg and del.icio.us, the World Wide Web has evolved from a global encyclopedia to an interactive metaverse of cultural exchange. People from around the world can connect with and influence one another in such a way that the world has never been able to do before. Indeed, Web 2.0 is the great social experiment of our time.

The Internet is still in its infancy, having only been released to the public in the early 1990s. It's exploring its own bodily capabilities. If after its birth the Internet was learning how to walk, then Web 2.0 is the Internet learning how to talk. A lot of criticism has been made regarding the actual usefulness of the Internet, especially Web 2.0. As a revolution of such massive proportions, Web 2.0 deserves such criticism. But I argue in its defense.

Today's Internet is obviously littered with useless user contributions. YouTube is cluttered with trivial videos, forums are droning with hollow and repetitive discussions, and comments to controversial topics end up with users fighting among one another. It's miraculous we can find anything online useful at all. That is because there is little to no moderation. The internet is an open forum, where anyone can say what they please no matter how lame or libelous. This almost anarchic social freedom allows and encourages Internet users to post away without considering the effects of their contributions.

One flaw of the open forum Web 2.0 is that it encourages users win the attention of the masses. This is evidenced by the thousands of half-baked videos submitted to YouTube or eBaum's World, the endless pretentious lists of books and music artists on profile pages, the superficially staged profile pictures, the endless pages of angry or fruitless comments, and so on. I'm generalizing, obviously, but I'm sure you've had the same thoughts at some point surfing the web.

There's a simple remedy for the attention gluttons, and that is to focus reputation on the collectively perceived quality of user contributions. Take posts counts, for instance. A user with a high amount of posts has not necessarily contributed useful information to a discussion. Post counts will always increase, but agreement with the user might change over time. Rather than display how many times a user has posted on a forum, display how many users subscribe to a user's activity. If a user contributes truly interesting material, more people should subscribe. Perceived quality should also be measured objectively. For instance, rating a post from 1-10 subjectively measures interest and is almost meaningless, while bookmarking a post measures what people have physically done to support the post. Newsvine's Leaderboard is a pretty good example of a system that objectively measures perceived quality.

The next step for Web 2.0 would be to restructure the social framework into a self-efficient, intellectually demanding medium. This is possible. It even exists in some fashion. Let's do a case study of Urbis and its critique system.

Essentially, Urbis is a social network for writers to share and critique each others' poetry and prose. But what makes this network unique is its complex crediting system. Each new member is granted with a number of credits. As one member uploads a piece of literature, another member can critique it. The critique will remain hidden to the intended author, who must spend an amount of credits proportional to the word-length of the critique. Credits may be received by critiquing another member's literature. These credits are also proportional to the word-length of the critique, so a writing a longer critique yields a greater credit income. Some checks and balances in the system prevent abuse. If a critique is great, the author can mark it as "helpful." If the critique is bogus, skimpy, or in other ways not helpful, the author can report it as inappropriate and refund his or her credits.

The idea of this crediting system is to promote constructive criticism. A writer joins Urbis to perfect his or her abilities and wants to know what others think of his or her literature. Urbis gives that luxury to the writer only if the writer gives it to others. Theoretically, this whole process of constructive criticism should cultivate better writers.

What appears to make this system so effective is its reciprocative structure. For Urbis users to received their desired service, they provide that service or else go bankrupt. Juxtapose this system to an open commenting system like that of deviantART and notice the stark difference in commenting diligence. Most Urbis comments are lengthy and substantial, whereas a typical deviantART comment consists of a mere pat on the back or a trivial emoticon—nothing intellectually beneficial to the artist.

By providing a service in which users must reciprocate the same service, we see more constructive thoughts flowing through the internet. If websites could somehow regulate user contributions through economic systems like that of Urbis, as opposed to open or manually regulated forums, the internet would experience a facile, more fruitful existence. We would see less ad hominem attacks on political forums. We would see more insightful comments to news articles. We would see a productive Internet.

Recap: Important Points

• To cultivate intellectual discourse on the Internet, the social framework of Web 2.0 must be restructured into a self-efficient, intellectually demanding medium.
• Reputation must be focused on the perceived quality, not quantity, of contributions. This must be measured objectively.
• In order for users to receive a desired service, they must provide that desired service to other users.

Back To Top