The New York Times writes:
Love it or hate it, though, its success is past denying 6.8 million registered users worldwide, at last count, and 1.8 million separate articles in the English-language Wikipedia alone and that success has borne an interesting side effect. Just as the Internet has accelerated most incarnations of what we mean by the word information, so it has sped up what we mean when we employ the very term encyclopedia. For centuries, an encyclopedia was synonymous with a fixed, archival idea about the retrievability of information from the past. But Wikipedias notion of the past has enlarged to include things that havent even stopped happening yet. Increasingly, it has become a go-to source not just for reference material but for real-time breaking news
Fans of MySpace and Facebook are divided by much more than which music they like, suggests a study.
A six-month research project has revealed a sharp division along class lines among the American teenagers flocking to the social network sites.
The research suggests those using Facebook come from wealthier homes and are more likely to attend college.
By contrast, MySpace users tend to get a job after finishing high school rather than continue their education.
In India, a teenager I know put it thus: “South Mumbai uses Facebook, North Mumbai uses Orkut.”
Liz Strauss discusses the Information and Relationships Webs:
Two very different world views one informational, one relational. Each point of view defines the experience differently. Static or dynamic, take your pick.
This elephant is standing on the web.
What is a link? Is a link clicks and traffic and Google rankings? Or does a link represent that I know you, that Ive read your content, that youre relevant and of value to me? Is a comment conversation or something I can buy or rent?
Were living in two Internets. It looks much like the companies we find in the world of brick and mortar. One is about places, information, and data. Its the buildings in which people work. The other is about people, relationships, and conversation. Its the people who work in those buildings. One is a structure. The other is social.
Don Dodge writes about how widgets can be monetised:
What is the business model for widgets?
* The Freemium model, upselling from free to premium services seems to be the best bet, at least for now. Many of the widgets provide a free service with options to buy premium services such as more detailed traffic statistics, more powerful services, enhanced customization, or higher levels of service.
* Sponsorship might make sense. A simple “Sponsored by Big Company” tagline across the bottom of the widget might fit well. I don’t see how larger advertising units would work for a small widget, and I doubt the “hosts” would allow it.
* Revenue sharing with your host – Facebook and MySpace don’t need to share their advertising revenues with the widget guys, but a smaller social network might want to. If I were the owner of a social network and wanted to build an ecosystem of developers building cool widgets on my platform I would indeed share some advertising revenue with them.
* Syndication network – If your widget distributes content widely,, think YouTube, then the content owners might want to pay you to get their content on your widget.