It has been long weeks since I promised that I would publish my short interview with a Wired Magazine reporter. So finally, here it is:

Opening Question

Are sites like Digg and Netscape threatening the job of editors the way blogs have threatened reporters?

These are most definitely a threat. Anyone who denies that is, well….. in denial. Academically-speaking, peer-reviewed content suffers in quite the same way, primarily due to CiteSeer et al (publication farms) and the “just Google it” culture. I have had elaborate discussions with colleagues about this…

Interview

First, can I get some background on you. How old are you, where do you live and what do you do? One thing I want to convey is the every-dayness of contributors. I want readers to understand that people in their 20′s are able to manipulate as much web traffic as the New York Times’ editor.

I am a 24-year-old Ph.D. student from Manchester University. I have been studying here since I was 18 and I am amidst graduation (the viva). My daily routine has changed significantly in the past year. From being a (or “just another”) blogger I soon became a highly involved contributer in forums (technical newsgroups and mailing lists in particular). As time went by I found myself infatuated. A new phenomenon emerged, which offered access to a large audience. That was the point when I joined Digg. I was soon heavily (albeit not always happily) entangled. The longer I was there, the more influence I had. I was able to drive traffic to articles that appealed to me. I was even contacted by people whose site I had ‘Dugg’. The loveaffair continued as the momentum was there; there was something charming and addictive about it.

I am going to talk to some people about how they approach Digging, but I wanted to ask you more about how you approach being a Netscape Navigator. I, of course, am unfamiliar with your duties. How is it different from when you were a free contributor to Digg? Does it feel different because you are getting paid?

So… I shall assume that your input from Diggers obviates the need for me to deliver information about that side of the fence.

In Netscape, our duties involve the delivery of at least 5 submissions per day (on average). I personally exceed that by a factor of ~6, which means that votes, owing to their distributions, get ‘diluted’. Beyond the contribution of content, there are no commitments or responsibilities that are mandated with an iron fist. In fact, the atmosphere is very nice as the bosses are lenient. The ambition comes from within rather than from above. Commitment for the site is a driving force. We have some lively mailing lists ‘at the back’ and we attempt to find and intercept spam submissions using some rudimentary tools. There is an increasing number of so-called ‘clans’ or ‘sock puppets’ that try to game the system.

More importantly — social bookmarking in total (digg, redit, netscape etc,): Do you feel your role as a “Top Digger” or “Netscape Navigator” give you a certain amount of power over web traffic? Is that a safe power for anyone to have? How do you think that relates to the control of a traditional newspaper editor?

As a Navigator, there is definitely a certain power that comes from the number and quality of one’s submissions. Recognition helps too and Navigators have the advantage of having their avatars appear in many places. And that certainly gives additional control over Web traffic. I hope this addresses your question.

The power is safe to have as long as the user/contributer (mind the subtle difference in terminology) can be trusted. Bear in mind that people’s submissions reflect on their passions and beliefs. In a political context this has led to some friction. I can’t attest to the experience of an editor in the press. However, be aware that there is no master mind (editor in chief), neither do we have real moderation or balancing mechanism (an ongoing issue to address). Supervisions appears to be minimal or very sporadic/selective.

Important point to add: social networks are driven by votes, so prominent content is being determined by the minds of the readers, whether it’s correct or not, whether it’s balanced or not. Social networks should always raise skepticism, so an outsider must never trust them. Social networks can be clannish and they can repel a certain crown while being a magnet to another. Digg, for example, is being transformed into an Apple turf, among other topics for which member have a passion.

Followup questions

1. Do you consider social bookmarking a new type of profesion? If so, how do you define it, what skills are involved?

Social bookmarking is, judging by my own perception, a contribution that enjoys a symbiotic relationship with one’s passion and interests. In many cases it can be a residue of one’s browsing habits; it has a (financial) reward bound to it as well.

The skills involved are few and the ‘entry barrier’ is, in general, very low. This does not necessarily indicate that there is motivation for dumbing-down of content. As short snippets bound to links are no longer a sin per se, there is this danger that journalism, attributions, and sources will be redefined.

2. Have you or anybody else ever recieved offers to get paid to submit a specific link? I’m getting the impression that this is not unheard of.

No, I was never approached with such an offer. I have, on the other, recently become aware of sites that encourage manipulation of content. This is worrisome.

3. Is this a good way for people to get their news: Is it as informative as a regular newspaper?

As I previously said, social networks and sites that represent a certain clique are bound to have bias. It’s seems inevitable that corruption and spamming will become more widespread and less detectable, too. That said, newspaper are no exception, albeit they are more closely regulated and artificially-balanced/moderated. Take the following as an example.

Bill Gates lends cash to buy newspapers

$350 million to MediaNews

Gates involvement has been very behind the scenes. In fact many of those involved in the deal didn’teven know he was one of the investors. It was carried out through the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropy outfit.

Source

This entry was posted on Monday, November 13th, 2006 at 12:56 pm and is filed under Personal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.