Shirky discusses free riders as one potential constituent of the online world. Free riders are people who take and gain from what is shared online, but who do not themselves contribute. Lurkers frequently are accused of being free riders, although some would argue that they are a necessary part of the online world. What has been your experience with free riders/lurkers? Do you feel they are problematic? Necessary? Nothing to be concerned with? Why? What impact do they have (or not have) on Web 2.0 use?
I personally don't see an issue with lurkers / free riders. I would go so far to say they're part of the Web 2.0 equation, for IMHO, if it were limited solely to contributors, the depth and breath of it's reach would be limited purely by the nature of the phenomena. If one looks at the power curve from our readings, you see that contributors tend to make up a nominal part of the equation. I've never posted a YouTube video, save one for a class project, yet I consume a lot of content e.g. I'm a lurker / free rider by definition. However, if people like me weren't "consuming", would YouTube still exist? I doubt it . . .
Amen. I posted on the DB that I have never posted a YouTube video either, but I certainly enjoy the benefits of access. If we were all creators of content, who would ultimately be the consumers? Same paradox applies to WebMD. I seriously doubt people would welcome my uneducated contributions there on various health topics given my lack of expertise. Could you imagine? LOL
ReplyDelete