Today Scott Karp made a rather naive argument saying that user generated content is a myth. I do agree that there is way too much noise in the user generated content but it doesn’t make UGC (User Generated Content) a myth. I suggest that Mr. Karp spends some time reading history before making a bold statement like this. There are many historical precedents to show that user generated contents can add value. Two of the most prominent cases are
- Open Source Software
- Wikipedia
We all know that open source software are developed with the contributions of thousands and thousands of users worldwide. In fact, many contributions to open source software are a result of user’s scratching their own personal itch. The contributions to open source software doesn’t come just from star programmers. Kiddie hackers and noobs trying to learn programming, equivalent of people in the streets, have contributed immensely to open source software. Before he became what he is, Linus Torvalds was just yet another programmer frustrated with the established system in the software world. Scott tries to get rid of the argument saying that the contributors are not people in the streets but programmers with immense potential. Unfortunately, Scott isn’t making the distinction that the bar is set to people with programming skills in the case of open source software because we are actually talking about software, a specialized form of content. In the case of content, as in user generated content, the barrier is automatically believed but the process remains the same. Anyone with experience with open source development process will agree that open source software is indeed a user generated software, contributed by thousands and thousands of actual users from around the world. In fact, many thought leaders of Web 2.0 will concede that open source software is the precursor to Web 2.0 approach.
Another example of user generated content is Wikipedia. Unlike in the case of open source software, the barrier to participate in Wikipedia is almost none. Literally, a person walking in the street can contribute to Wikipedia. It is a well known fact that the quality of Wikipedia is almost on par with Encyclopedia Brittanica. The breadth and depth of wikipedia articles talk about the value generated by thousands and thousands of people on the streets.
Clearly, there are historical precedent to the concept of user generated content. The above two examples are clear evidences for the value that can be created by user collaboration. Either Mr. Karp has failed to understand the role played by open source and wikipedia to the development of Web 2.0 concept or he is just trying to increase his position in the techmeme leadership board 
October 28th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Hi Krish,
“Kiddie hackers and noobs trying to learn programming, equivalent of people in the streets” — with all due respect, this is a completely nonsensical statement. Go down to the street corner, stop the first five people you meet, and see if they know how to code. As soon as you ascribe any particular skills, talent, knowledge to someone, they cease to be, by definition, an average person in the street.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Come on Scott, can’t you make a correlation between the kiddie hackers in the case of software creation and “people on the streets” in the case of content creation? There is a trivial correlation between these two cases. Why on earth should a guy on the street be a programmer when all he/she needs to do is to send content through video or audio or photo about something he/she has seen or experienced. I seriously wonder why you cannot understand that the role of kiddie hacker or a noob programmer in the case of software creation is similar to an ordinary joe on the street when it comes to capturing something happening on the street (content creation) with his camera or audio device. What is so difficult to make this correlation.