Search and Rescue...they are going to be (oops, are) BIG...

Two significant problems exist with most social media. The first problem is that marketers are actually the most interested people in having an exchange with you. I know, you might have 500 "friends" on FaceBook or MySpace, a loyal cadre of followers on your blog (even if they are 11 year olds), and gazillions of IM addresses. But the more people in your network, the more the marketers actually want a dialogue with you. Second problem - the whole web of social media is supported by the ad revenue model. Ultimately, the web will become one large advertisement as everybody seeks to monetize their content.

Consider this story about affiliate programs sending fake Twitter tweets filled with ads. This should not come as a surprise. Just when Twitter began to show some promise beyond "what I had for breakfast"...the advertisers took over. As a person who sometimes develops marketing strategy, I find some of these tactics in Web 2.0 unique, annoying, and sometimes creepy. But it provides some opportunites. I like to call it Search and Rescue. The search part has grown due to the challenges finding of information on the ever-growing Internet. Google? Yeah, still doing pretty well. Rescue is my term for all the technologies which save us from the creepy and annoying effects of the ad revenue model: spam filters, virus/worm checkers, ad blockers, identity protectors, widgets for FB and MySpace which limit ads, etc. I could decry all the annoying stuff created by the ad revenue model. Since this is my blog, I just might in the future. For now, I think I'm going to find some Search an Rescue stocks and try to capitalize...

Society Was Never Improved…by knowing the color of Paris Hilton’s Rolls Royce…

Last summer the Wikipedians met in Egypt (metaphorical?).One seemingly positive result from so much interest, use, and traffic at Wikipedia is that the repository has cut down on the incidence of controversial content and wars between differing opinions. This reduction of controversy to civility, censorship, and bland entries is precisely why Wikipedia might never become a world-changing service. For now, it is simply a repository of facts.

Don’t misunderstand me, Wikipedia is a great repository of facts. Old school traditionalists in my field, higher education, love to bash Wikipedia and normally fail to grasp the new way that people access, combine, and collaborate to make knowledge. But the elimination of controversy and disagreement essentially reduces Wikipedia to a fact checker. Which is my point, mankind was never furthered (or impeded, for that matter), by the color choice for a celebrity’s car or the accepted birthdate of jazz. New and good things come from controversy. Controversy makes people evaluate their position, thoughts, beliefs, and actions. Controversial opinions, products, and people make us uncomfortable but leave an impact, even if it is a stronger resolve for what we already believe.

I don’t know the answer to how Wikipedia can store and even foster the controversies that occur in our societies. I don’t know how Wikipedia can take a controversy like the Israel/Palestine disagreement and portray it so that society understands the complexities, difficulties, and history. I suspect, having been a writer all my life, that we need narratives, opinions, and long detailed pieces. We need good journalism, photographs, and people from both sides of the conflict weighing in with content. All of this content will cause different people have different opinions. This breadth of opinion is what ultimately spurs people to action and furthers society. A Wikipedia entry with the timeline of the history behind the Israeli/Palestine conflict is not going to change the world. It will never come close to chronicling the issue for future generations. Until Wikipedia stirs someone to action…it is just a bunch of facts.