HN Explorer

3 comments

[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 17.8 ms ] thread
wglb
Grumpy, I would say. Did we overlook the part where Atwood helps run Stackoverflow which is entirely powered by user generated content?

I think Jeff raises a good question, but unfortunately uses a bit of a hysterical headline.

phsr
Jeff is trying to get across is that before you devote an amount of effort towards something powered by user generated content, you should ask yourself a few questions.

Near the end of the post, he lists a set of questions you may want to ask yourself:

    * What do you get out of the time and effort you've invested in this website? Personally? Professionally? Tangibly? Intangibly?

    * Is your content attributed to you, or is it part of a communal pool?

    * What rights do you have for the content you've contributed?

    * Can your contributions be revoked, deleted, or permanently taken offline without your consent?

    * Can you download or archive your contributions?

    * Are you comfortable with the business model and goals of the website you're contributing to, and thus directly furthering?
That is probably the most important part of Jeffs post, and I think IT Goon missed that part
itgoon
I didn't miss that part. That's where Jeff posts the criteria _he_ looks at.

His assumption is that those criteria are not just good for _everyone_ who uses a user-generated-content site, but for _all_ user-generated content.

Mr. Atwood thinks that users should receive more for their efforts, and backs it up by giving more at the sites he runs. I respect that.

Try running his criteria past the user of a typical MySpace user. I'd bet the answers run a lot like this:

  * my friends can see it
  * my name is at the top, so it is me
  * I don't care (excepting serious artists, who should know better by now)
  * yes, if I'm a jerk
  * All I care about are my pictures, and I have copies
  * are they killing children in Rwanda, or something?