Wikicafe: Let's see if this blog comment gets approved

[Joe Dunphy]

Metacafe recently unveiled "wikicafe", a feature that will ultimately
allow its users to edit the titles, descriptions and tags of videos
uploaded by other users.


http://blog.metacafe.com/?p=162


If the users don't like the changes, that's no big deal, Metacafe
argues, because they can always edit the changes back. After which the
other users can retaliate by editing their changes back in, leading
the put upon user to edit them back and so on and so on ... until
somebody gives up and walks away from that time devouring test of
wills. An attempt at a justification for what promises to be a major
source of aggravation for the user can then be seen in a smugly
produced video featuring a woman that I find that I already love to
hate. Somebody named "Sherry" takes a poorly proofread sentence
floating on the screen and, with an expression on her face that
strangely blends annoyance, contempt and more than a hint of mental
retardation, moves the glowing letters around in the air, replacing
those that shouldn't be present, flicking a stray letter away, and
finishing with a thumbs up as she offers us a grin that must have
embarassed her fellow members of the little friends.



http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1427760/wikicafe_beta_hate_typos/



No, you didn't misread that. Metacafe is trying to defend something
that will turn what used to be a routine action into a continuing
headache on the basis that the change will allow the users to deal
with the minor annoyance of seeing typos posted by other users. Kind
of like saying, "sure, they got to burn down your house, but at least
you got to yank out their crabgrass" - and just not getting that the
trade is not a good one. "Gosh, that whole freedom of expression thing
is so pesky, isn't it, because when other people express themselves,
we find out that they aren't perfect". And neither are the trolls, for
whom this will be a gift; what is to keep one of them from abusing the
privilege, and doing something that clearly isn't a matter of
correction, such as inserting offensive material into a description?

I posted a comment on their blog that, at the time of this writing,
awaits moderation. Yes, moderation, and isn't that just so wonderfully
ironic, considering the fact that blog post is one touting a change
that will apparently deny their users control over their own words -
the very people who dismiss their user's concerns over that so glibly
don't even want to give up control over the space in their own
guestbook. I'm guessing that this will be one of those comments that
doesn't get seen where it was first posted, or if it does get seen,
will be seen in creatively edited (read: butchered) form, but we'll
see.





-------------- start of comment on metacafe company blog
-------------------




Here is a very simple question that I have yet to see a Metacafe
employee give a simple answer to: If I create a video and post it to
my account, creating a description and all, will I always be able to
opt out of having others being able to edit that description and, as
you put it, the “meta-information” I submit?

Yes or no?

Let’s hear a nice, simple, nonevasive answer to that. None of this
stuff about “while we’re in beta, we’re working it all out”. Yes or no
- is Metacafe’s staff prepared, at this time, to offer binding
guarantees that those who submit their own original material to this
service will always have the option of being the only users who can
edit their own videos’ descriptions and tags?

I am far from being the only person on the Internet to have taken a
good look at Wikipedia and concluded that he wanted no part of it.
Speaking as a user who is starting up I would have to say that if the
answer to my question is “no”, that’s a deal breaker, and I seriously
doubt that I will come anywhere near being alone in feeling this way.
As others will tell you as well, I’m sure, some of us do have lives
outside of the Internet, we don’t have time to waste on revert wars,
and we surely shouldn’t have to make time for them just to have
creative control over our own material, just because wikis are the
latest hip thing.

Given the fact that Metacafe is a distant second to Youtube in
traffic, if even that given the fact that Spike has entered the
market, and that other video hosting services in addition to these
three can easily be named by almost anybody (Vimeo, Veoh, Break.com
and Daily Motion immediately come to mind), we can easily take our
material elsewhere and see traffic as good or better than we would see
here, without the annoyance of having to butt heads with some semi-
anonymous control freak just to name our own videos. So if, as I
suspect, you’re just going to flip the bird to those users who aren’t
too thrilled with this latest brainstorm of yours, oh ever so gently,
then right back at you, folks, and without the slightest pretense of
good will.

Anything other than an ironclad guarantee that creative freedom will
always be there for those making a good faith effort to honor the
rules is just that - a flipping of the bird to those users upon whose
freely submitted creative contributions your company’s profits depend.
If your staff can’t collectively find enough gratitude to respect that
contribution in any meaningful way, then you don’t deserve to exist as
a company. Is that sort of contempt for the user what Metacafe wants
to go down on record as standing for?

Yes or no?





-------------- end of comment -------------------





Return to the wikicafe page on this googlegroup:

http://groups.google.com/group/josephdunphy/web/wikicafe

[Joseph Dunphy]

I've mentioned this post on Monday Never Comes,

http://joseph-dunphy.blogspot.com/2008/08/wikicafe-can-you-say-hypocrisy.html