Is Web 2.0 Really Democratizing Participation?
One of the attributes that has been cited as a key differentiator between what the web was and what it is now is the fact that the new technologies have created an architecture of participation. One need look no further than services like MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Wikipedia or any blog to realize that anyone with an idea, some time, a decent internet connection and some basic tools could become a content creator. But how many people are actually creating content? Have we reached a tipping point whereby as many content consumers are also producers? While the amount of hype surrounding the read-write web would lead many to believe so, some initial studies are suggesting otherwise.
A recent article by Bill Tancer, general manager of global research at Hitwise - a leading provider of online competitive intelligence - was published in TIME Magazine (Who’s Really Participating in Web 2.0)seems to challenge that fundamental belief based on a thorough analysis of internet traffic and activity. The recent data appears to indicate that only a very small percentage of online activity is related to participation (the creation and publication of content). Furthermore, the Pareto Principle (also known as the 80/20 rule) which states that 80% of all consequences stem from 20% of the causes, does not appear to be applicable when it comes to user-generated content, as much less than 1% of visits to user-driven sites are participatory.
Among the statistics provided by Tancer/Hitwise in the article:
- Far less than 1% of visits to user-centered sites like YouTube and Flickr are participatory. The remaining 99% are passive.
- 0.2% of visits to YouTube include the visitor uploading a video.
- 0.05% of visits to Google Video include uploading a video.
- 0.16% of visits to Flickr include posting a photo
- Only Wikipedia, with 4.56% of visits resulting in content editing, shows a significant amount of participation.
Some of other statistics regarding gender and age appear to be quite interesting as well:
- Visitors to Wikipedia are split 50/50 men and women, but 60% of edits to the site are made by men.
- YouTube visitors are equally split, but uploaders are predominantly (76%) male.
Finally, according to the article, age appears to play a very large role in determining the type of activity an individual is likely to participate in on one of these sites. Over 42% of Wikipedia visitors, for example, are under the age of 35, while 82% of those making edits are over 35 years of age.
The technologies and ideas associated with Web 2.0 have definitely gone a long way toward making a user-driven internet a reality but despite the rapid and revolutionary gains, it is definitely too early to say just how much impact or staying power these changes will have.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Sphere: Related ContentRelated Posts
If you enjoyed this post, you may find these interesting as well.
My name is Dave Sabol and I work at the intersection of technology, online learning and knowledge management for 
Maybe we should consider the reading/viewing of user generated content/social media a kind of “participation”. You can upload a video or photo anywhere — or for the uninitiated, email it. But only Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Maybe that accounts for the disparity. Only Wikipedia is a nonprofit
I call Pareto’s Principle 2.0 “Horowitz’s Law”. Google it to see what I mean. I think we are still in the early adoption phase for the participatory web. And 1% participation is better than 0%, which is what we had in Web1.0.
Ben,
Great tip on Horowitz’s Law! I have been slowly making my way (not a tough read but I am really trying to absorb it all on the first pass) through The Long Tail by Chris Anderson and he references a similar shift in the architecture of participation…mainly that an additional dimension (or dimensions) have been added to the mix. The interaction is now broader than the simple producer to consumer and now also includes remixers (synthesizers) and enthisasts.
To your point on 1%, I would agree that it is far better than nothing, but very far from achieving the true potential made possible by the democratization of production. Granted, from a macro-perspective, it could represent a huge amount of people and content, but I would tend to believe that is an exception (wikipedia) not the rule.
If I had to describe a participatory environment, it would be more about people taking action versus sitting on the sidelines and observing. Even the simple act of tagging to digg or del.icio.us is participatory as it begins to contribute value by adding context.
Sure everyone has to start somewhere - and lurking and/or even tagging is a great way to do it - but what about all of those folks that could be contributing but choose not to? Is it a failing of the system or are they simply skimming off of the dividends of other peoples work without making an investment themselves?