In all the hubbub around Web 2.0 and open source ("Everyone an author!"), we seem to have forgotten that in the increased authorial possibilities, the real winners will be editors. What has changed, however, is the nature of those editors.
Digg. Google. Etc. These are a new breed of editor, with the content being web pages, news stories, or open source software.
It's not a new idea, and I'm certainly not the originator of it. But the thought came to me while pedaling (literally - I've been reading it while riding an exercise bike during this week's trip to London) through Yochai Benkler's mostly satisyfing The Wealth of Networks.
The Internet is useful not only because it increases the diversity and volume of voices we can hear, but also because it limits the ability to force these voices into an NBC, CBS, ABC-like structure where editors are above the influence and control of their users. Benkler suggests:
[The Internet] is the first modern communications medium that expands its reach by decentralizing the capital structure of production and distribution of information, culture, and knowledge. 30
He's right, and we're seeing this play out throughout the technology and media world.
The problem (or, at least, one major problem) with this dramatic increase in the volume of content is not, as Nick Carr
might argue, that we're left with a huge pile of rubbish. Point well taken, and often true. Even so, depending on the type of content, I may actually prefer something amateurish to something professional. I religiously read Arsenal football blogs - it's the first thing I do when I boot up in the morning. In these, I'd prefer to get the opinion of the average fan, rather than reading highly similar accounts of the team (which I also read - I am, after all, a freak) from
The Guardian,
The Times,
Soccernet, etc.
No, the bigger problem is the so-called "Babel" objection. (If you don't know what Babel refers to, I won't take the time to relieve your ignorance. Go back to Sunday School. :-) Namely, how can one possibly manage the torrents of information? Benkler provides the answer:
First, as a baseline, it is important to recognize the power that inheres in the editorial function. The extent to which information overload inhibits autonomy relative to the autonomy of an individual exposed to a well-edited information flow depends on how much the editor who whittles down the information flow thereby gains powers over the life of the user of the editorial function, and how he or she uses that power. Second, there is the question of whether users can select and change their editor freely, or whether editorial function is bundled with other communicative functions and sold by service providers among which users have little choice. Finally, there is the understanding that filtration and accreditation are themselves information goods, like any other, and that they too can be produced on a commons-based, nonmarket model, and therefore without incurring the autonomy deficit that a reintroduction of property to solve the Babel objection would impose. (169)
We are fortunate in many ways, because the Internet makes absolute editorial control less appealing to users and less possible technologically. Software increasingly provides the editorial function - software the harnesses the collective intelligence (or lack thereof) of its users. Users matter, because users are editors in parallel with their usage.
In this way, editors matter more today than they ever have, because they both better reflect the wishes of the 'Average Joe' and because they relieve users from centralized control. Such Internet-age editors will not have the same clout as old economy editors have had, as Benkler notes:
Why, however, is this not a simple reintroduction of heteronomy, of dependence on the judgment of others that subjects individuals to their control? The answer is that, unlike with proprietary filters imposed at bottlenecks or gateways, attention-distribution patterns emerge from many small-scale, independent choices where free choice exists. They are not easily manipulable by anyone. Significantly, the millions of Web sites that do not have high traffic do not "go out of business. (173)
Yes, as
Nick suggests , there is a tension between openness and control, even in peer-driven editors like Google. But as I think Benkler successfully argues, such "control" is not as absolute in the Internet era. It's potentially much more inane (as a casual glance at Digg's top stories on any given day will reveal), but not more absolute.
How will this apply to open source software? I'm still not sure. We've had a range of startups funded to manage the cacophony that is Sourceforge, but I think this is largely an early response that will pass. Application vendors are the best source of "certified open source stacks," because they deliver the end-user value that enterprises are actually hoping to find.
I suspect the open source world still has some innovating to do here. Open source companies can take a page out of Web 2.0's editorial book and make it easier (and more worthwhile) for outside developers/users to go "inside": contributing patches, finding bugs, writing documentation, etc. Roadmaps need to be even more user-driven. Core code creation will undoubtedly continue to rest with the company or project founders, but there is a wealth of editorial work to be done once true communities begin to flourish around them.
Thoughts?
I ordered my Netgear WiFi Skype phone in early August, and it finally arrived today. Given that my 3-year old lost my office phone (don't ask) earlier in the day, it was a welcome package.
This isn't a fair conclusion - most proprietary products fail, too - but the more important observation is that, in fact, open source doesn't operate willy-nilly, but rather is disciplined, well-controlled, and profitable for an increasing number of companies. I really like the graphic (shown at right) that shows the overall activity in Apache, as compared to core code contributors. It's simply not the case that anyone can contribute - you must earn that distinction, and doing so in an open source project is almost certainly much more difficult than in a proprietary software company.
This is one reason that 
Baylor University recently did a study where they asked people how they view God's personality, and correlated this with their poitical beliefs. The results are hugely interesting:
