Jason Calacanis has an interesting post on his blog where he officially defines web 3.0:
“Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform.”
I think highly of Jason and generally enjoy his posts, but I very much disagree with this one. And the reasons that I disagree are both scientific and engineering.
First, humans are not good at keeping up with computers. It is just not how our brains wired. A handful, even a thousand of people, can not efficiently and effectively leverage the vast web and myriad of web services that exist today.
More importantly, the whole latest social shift is towards natural, self-organizing systems like Digg and YouTube. The key thing about such system is that the “truth” in these systems is emergent, it is not imposed from the top or controlled. As a result self-organizing systems are always imperfect (think biology, sociology and economics!).
We are going to have to live with imperfections as a tradeoff for the speed of information.
Where I do see the possibility of human editing, and do agree with Jason, is for over longer term information. This concept is fairly well known, its called research and encyclopedia. In case of historical information human editing makes a lot of sense, because it is possible to research, digest and present the information in the best way.
But when it comes to news and things happening in real time, there is no way for humans to keep up. This job is left to Google 2.0 or its more successful rivals.