A few weeks ago, Eric Goldstein, CEO of Clipmarks, invited me to his new website: Amplify. Amplify allows users to share clippings (like excerpts of text or images) much like Clipmarks, but encourages its users to comment on it and then the combined commentary and clipping are displayed together on a blog.

The uses are interesting. Amplify is a good way to quickly express an opinion on a topical issue and to share lesser known news stories. These can then be posted to Twitter, del.icio.us and/or Clipmarks through the site: maximising exposure.

The site also has a social element. You can comment on others posts and allow others to post on your ‘cliplog’, so many are ground cliplogs for specific projects etc.

WordPress MU is used so when you log-in, you face a familiar WordPress admin interface and you manage comments and users in the same fashion you manage WordPress users.

I like Amplify because it allows me to easily run a political blog (which can be seen here). I can clip stories that I want to share or discuss and write a minimal amount of opinion, but sufficiently communicate my viewpoint. I’ve even had a few complete strangers comment on my clips, and they’ve then retweeted them! It also displays retweets on the clipblog under comments.

Amplify allows users to log-in through Twitter’s OAUTH or to get their own account. Amplify, like Clipmarks, is well worth a look and is actually a really enjoyable but easy form of blogging.

I often blog about Wikipedia, but I have recently started to contribute to Wikinews. One thing that immediately struck me was that Wikinews’ community was much warmer than Wikipedia’s, but naturally it is much smaller.

As communities grow larger, generally more disputes arise. As more disputes arise, ways in which to resolve them must develop.

With thousands of active (and highly vocal) editors, Wikipedia finds itself with a plethora of arguments.

Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process can be described as notoriously bureaucratic. There’s requests for comments, third opinions, a mediation cabal, a mediation committee and an arbitration committee. Complex, don’t you think? The arbitration committee is the highest source of authority on Wikipedia (bar Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation Board, who barely ever give an opinion). They are currently dealing with 14 cases I believe, and remember these are only the most severe/important disputes on the entire encyclopedia.

Wikinews, a community with only 50 admins, also has an Arbitration Committee with a similar role. They, however, have only fully dealt with 2 cases since 2006. In fact, the last case they had to decide whether or not they would take on was back in 2008, when they made a proposal to abolish the committee. One editor described it as ‘nothing but bureaucracy… with exactly zero point’, as there’s so few disputes.

So, bigger communities argue more. Smaller communities like Wikinews seem to have no major feuds inside them and all of their users are working towards a common goal, whilst in Wikipedia I feel that different editors want different things out of the project.

Working in a small community is much more rewarding than working in a large community with a lot of in-fighting. Things are also done quicker; I know Wikipedia can take several years to tidy up articles whilst on Wikinews, they’re fixed in hours.

I am a big fan of Wikipedia and for some reason, I chuckle everytime I read the media report about it. The old media appear to often have a negative bias towards the Internet, seeing it as a threat and a corrupter of morals. However, coverage of Wikipedia is always particularly negative.

Amazingly, The Observer deemed it newsworthy to report that Wikipedia had been edited to show Robert Kilroy-Silk (a controversial British MEP) was a member of the Monster Raving Loony Party. Whilst libel is definitely an issue and is wrong, most instances of blatant vandalism like this are fixed in minutes, if not seconds! That, though, doesn’t make a captivating headline or read!

Reporting on Wikipedia’s inaccuracies, libel and vandalism is old news. By now, the public should have realised that ‘WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY’ (to quote their disclaimer). It’s perfectly easy for any journalist to find lies or vandalism on Wikipedia articles through purely clicking on the ‘history’ link on the article and seeing which edits have been reverted.

I found everything from local newspapers to major national news stories criticising Wikipedia (or information within it).

I hope the media begin to move away from blaming Wikipedia and begin to blame the editors who make the misleading edits. People, children and adults, still find it amusing to vandalise articles and it seems to even be considered acceptable amongst the populace.

The beauty of the whole matter is that despite the fact the media criticise Wikipedia’s reliability, they use it for quick research and occasionally even quote it as some sort of definitive resource!

Remember the Venice Project? Back in 2006 people were sure this mysterious IPTV solution would ‘kill YouTube’ and even Om Malik wanted an invitation. So, what happened to it? It was released as Joost – a service which offers quite high definition video but still lacks major shows (their offering primarily being a few series of Babylon 5 and Peep Show in the UK) and more often than not has content already available on other sites. They even abandoned their desktop P2P-based approach to taking a more accessible streaming Flash browser video one. Joost definitely is not one of the greatest Web 2.0 services like many expected it to be!

Perhaps you recall ‘Citizendium‘, a wiki encyclopedia which unlike Wikipedia had strict editing controls. The site was co-founded by Wikipedia’s co-founder, Larry Sanger. Despite coverage from major news outlets (from newspapers to tech blogs), Citizendium has failed to ever seem to reach a reasonable size: only 9217 articles in over 2 years. That’s roughly the size of Wikipedia… in Chuvash (a language spoken in a small Russian republic!).

What about coComment? The service in many respects seems to have been usurped by Disqus etc. yet coComment’s aim of unifying fragmented conversation has still gone unachieved. coComment used to be extremely popular, but now I do not know any blogs, nor bloggers, who use it.

Another example is AllPeers. AllPeers was basically a service which allows people to set up ‘private’ P2P networks so friends etc can share files. This was all done through a Firefox plugin. Demand for invites was high, but it has now shut down despite its old popularity!

Web 2.0 was the era of “hype”. This often led to disillusionment and disappointment, but we should not forget the success stories… I know people through this blog who have made a small fortune.

I use about 3 or 4 forums, but to check my activity I have to go on each individually. Someone can’t browse my posts at one forum on another. I can’t browse someone’s posts on one forum on another. There isn’t a shared log-in. It’s a bit silly.

The fact every forum is so contained in itself definitely creates community, but from a social point of view linking them together more would surely be beneficial.

Linking them together would have several advantages: users could find other forums, friendships could be maintained across forums and it’d be much better than having to Google someone and then guess if it’s the same person.

It’s amazing sites like Disqus haven’t existed for years for forums!

A brief post, I know, but I’m sure there’ll be lots of opinions. Why hasn’t Web 2.0 hit forums yet?