Babson College professor Tom Davenport suggests Web 1.5 is probably better than any single 1.0 or 2.0 solution for the modern business. Combine, he says, the best of what professionals and experts have to offer with the more free-wheeling world of user-created content.
I’m dead set against his approach. It’s the surest way to kill any benefit that 2.0 generates. Here’s why.
In his Harvard Business Blog post Why 1.5 Is Greater Than 2.0, Davenport argues:
“The proponents of 2.0 thinking on user-generated content, be they fans of Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Health 2.0, or Rhubarb 2.0, would have us believe that their highly participative approach is the only one that works. And indeed, there is an appeal in democratizing content creation and management. However, in almost every case there is also value in professional involvement.”
He lays out the central argument that we as information consumers benefit by having access to both user-generated content as well as to the opinions of experts. His example: There is certainly a role for passionate Huffington Post bloggers to play in helping us understand the world around us, but we should also value the cool-headed reporting from the New York Times.
No argument, here. The more sources of knowledge, the better.
The Business Case
But where I think Tom goes off the tracks is when he turns his attention to 2.0 inside business. Suddenly, the idea of many sources of information is out, and “curated” blogs and discussions are preferred. His unstated argument: facilitators and community organizers keep the exchange of ideas organized and easily digestible.
But moderators come with a price. Just as the presence of an observer can alter the results of an experiment, the appearance of an editor, moderator or curator shapes, corrals and dilutes the conversations that follow.
Here’s the good news. In the 2.0 world, we don’t need ‘em. We can do away with moderators because existing Web technologies provide useful tools for following and contributing to the streams of knowledge we find of most interest. These tools include content tagging (folksonomy and/or structured taxonomies), social bookmarking, visualization, collaboration wikis and other online sharing spaces, RSS feeds — all help us make sense of the information as it flows by.
Moderators are great at keeping meetings on track, but they bias rather than benefit 2.0 exchanges. The simple truth is that businesses cannot create 2.0 networks by executive fiat. They can only make sure the tools and infrastructure are in place for those people who would like to form networks.
Do you agree with me that “Web 1.5″ is the worst of both 1.0 and 2.0 worlds? Or does Tom Davenport have it right, that experts and content creators are more powerful when we use them together rather than separately?
