Early adopters of blogs and wikis and other collaborative web technologies, have advocated a publish first, edit later model. Almost to the point at which some say, with a strong enough search engine, it doesn’t matter what goes in, as long as individuals can pinpoint and find what they need.
Having been in new media since 1982 (early adoption of news video in the field, cable before cable was cool, early commercial database with a web interface, early media asset management, first digital audio, first digital video, first streaming video and early into the blogs and wikis), I’m telling you Marshall McLuhan was right, but only in the short term. Words and organization of content matter. They always end up mattering, and define the things that last.
There is a nascent yet burgeoning trend on the web to use collaborative media to create things of refinement and value. See Merlin Mann’s recent ontological crisis when Twitter showed him anyone could fill the web with snarky meaningless observations about popular culture. Amazing, just weeks ago, he was thinking about changing his entire approach and going for higher, lasting, quality. Also see Seth Godin’s view of his “members only & real names displayed” wiki which he finds increases quality. Even he edited his wiki page on copyright to remove the “silly” content, and he was the one deeming it “silly.”
Web 2.0 doesn’t all have to be a Libertarian Paradise
Many point to Wikipedia as an example of a writing process-less implementation. However wikipedia demands accountability, has an article format and roving bands of independent editors wielding their “rational self interest.” Wikipedia is a lot more than just government-less. Creating a culture takes a template.
It is possible to use Web 2.0 and get all the goodness of open collaboration, and include all the goodness of the editorial process. Granted, the “writing process” is no longer linear and can be designed to be much less hierarchical. But what history has taught us is an editorial process should be included in any successful publishing activity.
I’ve developed a circular model in which the first step is always publishing, but then the writer (or somebody) should go through all the steps.
It’s a long way from the hierarchical linear writing process of yesteryear. Those third grade teachers who teach their students “publishing” as a linear “secret” step-by-step process of private work with clandestine “writing conferences” before printing to the laser jet printer! are speaking to an audience of 9-year olds, many of whom published world-wide multiple times the previous evening and nobody (not the writing police or a roving editor) came knocking on their door.
An editorial process can take the good, bad and the ugly produced by the mob, and make it something the entire mob finds useful to consume.
Many early adopters of any technology become like helicopter parents, worried more about how structure will hem their children in rather than provide a pathway toward something more productive.
As a proponent of “open education” I would urge everyone looking for ways to make the collaborative web work, to not be too close minded about editorial openness.