September 15, 2008
                                            March     21, 2009

  Looking at the present-day
  state-of-the-web I see many
  failures of nerve.

  Slashdot was on the verge
  of becoming a major force
  in the world, but instead
  they copped-out and chose       "Why are you guys so excited
  to remain a web-toy.            about your karma?  It's just
                                  funny money!  Lighten up."

                                          They had an *army of geeks*
                                          at their disposal, willing
                                          to jump through hoops to get
                                          something from them that
                                          doesn't cost them anything,
                                          and they essentially
                                          flinched, and shrugged off
                                          the problem of becoming a
                                          reputation server.

  Then there's the case
  of wikipedia and the
  decision to tag links     NOFOLLOW
  with "nofollow".

  Google uses links to rank the
  importance of a site (or at                 Google doesn't
  least they used to), and the                really tell us
  most important repository of                what it is they
  links, at present, is wikipedia.            do -- but it's
                                              hard to see how
  SEO scum interested in gaming               they could
  the system were spaming the links           possibly still
  of wikipedia pages, and wikipedia           be relying
  chose to remove their incentive --          quite so much
  by opting out of the process.               on simply using
                                              links as votes.
     If that kind of reasoning continues,
     wikipedia is bound to receed to
     a very marginal role: when information
     becomes important, someone will want
     to subvert it:
     Is wikipedia's only answer to try to
     keep the information unimportant?

                             (Sept 16, 2013)
    This is an admission that wikipedia has
    no defense against motivated subversion.     And consider Jimbo Wales
                                                 reaction to the problem or
    They want to be the repository of all        "original research": we are not
    human knowledge, but if they become          well equipped to evaluate this
    important, the more visible they             material, therefore, we should
    become, the more incentive their is          prohibit it.
    to game the system...
                                                      Another way you might
    The more succesful wikipedia is,                  react: "How can we get
    the less succesful it can be.                     better equipped"?

                                                      Or: if we're not equipped
                                                      for this, who is?

          Yes, we all know about
          "worse is better" and the
          problems with excessive

             The web has succeeded
             where Xanadu failed
             in part because of a
             pragmatic character,
             a willingness to be
             sloppy, to be minimal.

               At some point, we're going to
               need some really *good* way               Not just up-to-the-
               of amplifying our collective              minute triva feeds
               intelligence.                             and dancing kitten
               Is there no one left who
               wants to implement a Xanadu?