Monday, November 6

Web 2.0 and the changing face of editorial content

The pure premise of Web 2.0 is
  • let's get rid of editors;
  • users submit the content, including primary entries, feedback, ratings, and even clicks.
  • recency is absolutely necessary to the value of content;
  • a critical mass volume is necessary in the tens of thousands, if not much higher
  • the value of content is best determined by the wisdom of the masses through user rating, user volume.
  • meaningful 1:1 relationships can come from participation in communities

What does that change, if anything, the training model?


Mark said...


Not "get rid of the editors" but let's all become editors...and reporters

I'd agree that 'recency' can be / should be one factor of valuing content but I'd argue against that being "absolutely necessary"

While I too am a "wisdom of the crowds" fans...I'd also argue that an important vector will be the trust and reputation associated any given far as how does it impact the training model...I think it further decentralizes the authority if not the function of the training department - you could well have power users and power raters arise well outside the "official" lines of the training department.

Karl Kapp said...


An interesting comment made by the founder of Wikipedia (Jimmy Wales)at Training Magazine's 2006 Training Solutions Conference and Expo in Denver (near the big blue bear)

Jimmy said in a study they conducted most of the entries in Wikipedia were originally added by only about 650 really active contributors.

Others tweek or critique but a "bulk entry" or new entry is really only created by a few handfuls of people.

I think this speaks to the fact that experts are needed to start, guide and tutor any learning that occurs in a Web 2.0 environment (or any other informal learning environment) and that we should not all buy into the "the wisdom of crowds" theory of learning.

I think crowds do some pretty stupid things at times...riots, running with the bulls, voting for the front runner in a race because he or she is a front runner.

In actuality, web tools, like other elements of society are really only given value when a few experts provide input. The rest is, in reality, not as important.

Anonymous said...

Interesting question . . . I think that, among other things, Web 2.0 makes learning more active and participatory with the lines between "instructor" and "learner" fading to a blur. There will be an expectation that the result of a learning activity is a product, rather than performance on a test. Learners will also expect more input into the structuring of learning activities and more transparency about the learning process itself.

A huge change, I think, will be more "just-in-time" learning, as well as greater use of knowledge management and informal learning as strategies.

To me, the challenge in all of this is going to be the desire of the "training department" to hold on to instructor-led development and delivery of training. What happens if I let the learners take over? What role do I play in that kind of environment? Can I let go of command and control and provide training in a more participatory, user-created environment?