How Habrahabr defeated everyone

    Recently, completely incomprehensible voices began to be heard : Habrahabr - a site where everyone is only involved in copying information from other information resources. Let us analyze whether this is so in reality?
    Take for example a small note on the Reuters website “Participation on Web 2.0 sites remains weak” and trace the translation history of this note in RuNet.
    So, April 17, 2007 Eric Auchardpublished a material entitled "User participation in the creation of Web 2.0 sites remains negligible." The article mainly contained statistics: only 0.16% of YouTube users upload videos, 4.6 percent of Wikipedia users form the content of the encyclopedia, and the growth of users of Web2.0 projects has reached 668% over the past two years.

    On April 18, 2007, the article’s translation appeared on the Russian Internet segment on the pages of Habrahabr (correct me if it appeared somewhere on RuNet before that) - “The number of creative people remains scanty” by authorship of esteemed Anatoly Alizar alizar , finalist in the category “journalist of the year” on Rotor 2007 . The translation contained:
    1. Statistical information from the original article;
    2. Explanatory provocative conclusions, the opinion of the author-translator:
    Apparently, the "one percent rule" was equally relevant in the era of web forums ten years ago, and in the "fiduciary" era twenty years. By itself, Web 2.0, it turns out, does not change anything in the creativity of people.

    3. 70 comments, essentially a continuation of the article, with a discussion of published information. They generated new ideas:
    Imagine if at least 5% start writing and posting - there will be many repetitions!

    ... the same rule (1–9–90) can be applied to hired labor in a company: 1 person. earns money, 9 - help him, and 90 - fool around. :)

    The article ended with a link to the original, after which I was able to evaluate the content of the text on the Reuters website. In general, I personally found the material important, I added it to my Favorites (both Russian and English versions) in order to use it in the future.

    Now attention: April 19, 2007 translation of the noteappears on one of the most popular computer news resources The author’s translation, but, unfortunately, after reading the article, one can agree with the commenting point of view: “Authors with logic are clearly not all right.” Please note: this can not be said about the original article and the translation on the hub Even more important, cnews does not provide a link to the source of the article (at the time of publication of the topic you are reading now), that is, this “analytical material” is essentially a rough copy of someone else’s text without a link to the original.

    And then it went: April 20 - techlabs , "Theory of Web 2.0 is unpromising", with the beginning of "According to the portal Cnews ..." and a link to the "original" cnews material. April 20 and 22- blogs (also notes the strangeness of articles on cnews) here , here , and others , all with links to cnews.


    1. Copying of other people's materials is widespread on the Internet everywhere (hyperlinks, copy-paging concentrate is the basis of the web), one case out of millions is considered here. The recipe for the “Authorial Analytical Material”, so as not to become something like “there web two-zero-where-users-copy-paste-everything-in-the-world-but-they-do-nothing-do” (hi do-you-know- to whom) it is simple: to reflect on the news in English a little, translate, add your opinion and (most important!) - forget to include a link to the original.

    2. What happened is paradoxical and unique in its own way: an article with conclusions about the insolvency of the work of resources with user-generated content in Russian was first published on Habrahabr, a resource in which all news, reviews, materials are generated by users independently. And only then it was picked up by a commercial news resource, where people get real money for their work, not virtual points, lacks a link to the source, and, in general, is distorted. Thus, an answer was given to the question about the real value of resources with user-defined materials.

    3. The fundamental difference between the concept of Web 2.0 and everything that was previously, in my opinion, is not at all in technology, cross-sharing or graphomania. It is in what happened, and there is a difference:users themselves, most often for free and together, create something that no one has managed to create before (even if it will be a good fresh translation indicating the source or just a video of the cat) - and thereby produce quite high-quality and popular content. This also means that, for example, on Habré, everyone can discuss news, text, video - and thereby produce new ideas, opinions, news. The difference between the original Habr’s concept and the usual forum is not rude, they respect the opinion of the interlocutor, they speak out, as a rule, essentially with clever humor, thereby the process of producing and receiving new information is much more effective, with a decrease in pseudo-informational noise and without overflowing into the usual ones and blogging squabbles.
    And judging by what happened and is happening every day - Web2.0 projects with a similar ideology and convenient implementation have a great future.

    Also popular now: