Can anyone “edit” the Wikipedia and Digg?

Slate: The Wisdom of the Chaperones. This article argues that Digg and Wikipedia are not as “democratic” as they suggest they are in concept, because both are tightly managed by a small group of super users. While this sounds bad, its not particularly surprising that the people who invest the most time on these sites exert the most influence. I would argue the democratic spirit of these sites, a la Anton Ego, is not that anyone can edit but an editor can emerge from anywhere. These sites have self-organized as pure meritocracies which makes them unique.

Leave a Reply