For examples -- and there are many -- one need look no further than Forumwarz. Billed as "The Internet...in game form," in Forumwarz players earn points by attempting to wreck as many forums as possible through obnoxious posting.
While Forumwarz is a parody and not an example of why user moderated comments are a bad idea, there seems to be little difference between, say, YouTube user moderated comments, and Forumwarz comments. It just takes one silly
But what's new and different about what I'm saying is this: 1) User comments seem to be the holy grail of "social media" for, say, newspaper sites, and as such 2) have an adverse affect on the content they're meant to support. In other posts on this blog I've pointed out problems I've found with the New York Times and it's become clear to me that I wasn't so willing to do this before I realized I could, and publicly. I also agree with the unpopular sentiment that there is a difference between blogging and journalism (how could there not be) so I don't understand why the papers are moving towards these services so enthusiastically.
(Maybe they just don't get it.)
I also don't understand why they're not seeking to make a greater distinction between hard journalism and wispy (not to mention puerile) content.
It seems as if newspapers have also gotten themselves wrapped up in what Jim Collins calls a "doom loop:"
1) We are losing readership to Internet-driven* content
2) Let's create Internet-driven content of our own!
3) This weakens our own content and
4) Our Internet-based audience comments on it on their Internet-driven content
5) Back to step one.
Hmmm...maybe I should go to journalism school!
*Question: I wonder if there's a term for that type of content, generically? Content that is driven by, created by, Internet-based content generating media. Example, a blog.
1 comment:
A post to LinkedIn's Questions came back with the phrase "user-generated content." A tip-o-the-pin to Terri Wells for that one.
Post a Comment