Below is a new video concerning user generated content (UGC). The video summarizes the debate between the “Web 2.0″ concept of a totally egalitarian web-media vs. the concept that professionals are better are filtering and discerning facts. To summarize: one side argues that all view points are valid because “everyone has their own truth”. The other side says that there is one truth and experts dedicated to finding the trunth are more qualified to decide what gets printed. I am simplifying a lot, so, it is best for you to watch the video yourself…

This debate reminds me of this commercial for TheLadders, a little:

The problem with everyone having a voice, is that everyone has a voice that is equal. In a communications medium like a chat-room, this is not a problem. The problem can occur when everyone’s voice is equal when we are trying to discover the truth.

That being said, I think there is actual value in what Wikipedia has built. I like the service. I think that it is useful as long as you understand that there is a “caveat emptor” concept here - you understand that Wikiedia is a good starting point for research - but is not a final authoritative resource.

The Future

The problems with current user generated content is that it is not a meritocracy. Everyone has an equal voice. Equality is great when it comes to equal rights (how the government must treat you, and your right to have laws equally applied) but, equality when it comes to areas of expertise is not a good thing. When you need a surgery, you don‚Äôt pick a random person off the street to operate on you ‚Äì you seek out a professional- an expert. You “discriminate” based on knowledge and experience. And, that’s a good thing.

Online resources that utilize UGC can improve in two ways to become more valuable:
1. Enforce Identity
2. Create a Meritocracy

Yes, this means more editorial control by the website. Someone who has a vested interest in wanting the information to be accurate and useful.

“Enforcing identity” means that the online service should require users to have some level of verifyable identity that is difficult to con.
“Create a Meritocracy” means that the site should create a system where performance, experience, knowledge, and quality is rewarded - and merit allows some to rise to the top. Or, it may even mean that a company hires a person to be responsible for content and to filter it the best they can. The company would have the incentive to try to hire the best people for the job, and create a useful product.

So, now we have websites that allow a high level of interactivity and a place where everyone has a voice. Perhaps “next version” will be websites that enforce identity and create more quality though merit. This could be done through systems that track identity and merit; and build that into the functionality of the website. This may even mean that professionals step in to use “Web 2.0″ type tools/ technologies and bring the quality to a new level in a perfect mix of professional oversight and user-interactivity when it comes to online authoritative resources.