|
Slate recently ran this article about how the supposedly democratic world of Web 2.0 is anything but, with a select few tyrants holding full editorial power over such sites as Digg and Wikipedia. What’s the big deal? Complete democracies are for Coke commercials from the 1970s.
Before the fist pounding begins, keep in mind that the word “editorial” relies on omission and selection. An edit discards some in favor for the vision, and that's a vital function.
On the other hand, collaborative works tend to highlight their shared nature over the quality of the work. Collaborative art, collaborative fact…it's a modifier standing in for substance.
But that's okay. The world needs well-organized good work as well as stunning originality, vision and that devastating primary text on which the critics and analysts attach their careers.
Editorial functions are not old media functions. They’re valid functions in any form. There is no Carver without Lish, no Bush without Rove. The great unspooled democracy online is evident in the comment chains attached to YouTube videos. What a waste of time. It's not conversation or even the pretense of conversation. It's a group of morons killing birds with slingshots. It's boredom and violence.
Individual brand identity online is inextricably tied to the editorial function. Gary Vaynerchuk, tell me what to drink. Super Diggers, tell me what to laugh at. Same old story: Form order from the meaningless chaos of the universe. It's not the wisdom of the big crowd. It’s the wisdom of one editor endorsed by a smaller but influential segment of the crowd.
**to read more articles by this author, click on the name under the headline**
 |
