Phony Digg stories show iterative Web 2.0 problem

It’s not usually that much a big deal for Digg, but now journalists have picked up on another phony article.
Steve Rubel of Micro Persuasion reports that Digg users read the post (”Just out from Reuters: 650,000 PS3s to be recalled”!) and predictably ‘Dugg’ (voted for) the story. In the echo chamber that is Digg, this quickly led to more and more Diggs, the story landed on the front page, and eventually it was determined to be a fraud perpetrated by someone as a gag. (The story has been taken down.)
Steve believes this is grounds for some kind of trust/authority rating system by a third party, similar to what eBay has done. I disagree. eBay’s reputation system works well because the range of behaviors it monitors is small and easy to check - Did payment arrive? Was the product shipped?
On the contrary, collaborative-editing users are a lot harder to rate. Do you rate them based on accuracy? If so, most submitters are accurate, so it would probably only filter out those who make mistakes or those who are spammers and scammers. Fine, but that doesn’t rank the remaining valid submitters. Then you get the problem of perceived bias: would you rank someone highly who held positions that are wildly different from yours?
Muhammad Saleem of The Mu Life circles around this point. He asks, “Is bias in social media so strong that people will believe anything (as long as it is pro-Apple, or pro-Nintendo, anti-Microsoft, or anti-Sony, and so on…)?”
That’s part of the problem, but the big issue is speed. Everyone is so interested in being the first submitter, the first one out there with the news, or the first one to support (or Digg) an article that fact-checking and double-checking independent sources falls by the wayside.
Digg and the other sites are a lot like Wikipedia, and, for proto-Web 2.0 sites, gossip blogs: put something up, and correct it later. Wikipedia works by successive iterations that are supposed to pare down an article to its most accurate, objective words.
We like Digg because it’s fast and it brings us everything from the mainstream to the unusual. Part of the price of speed is accuracy. “Trust but verify,” President Reagan once said. I’d modify that to “Enjoy, but wait for confirmation, and don’t jump on the bandwagon right away.”
Tags: Digg, Fake News, Trust, Authority, News Bias, Wikipedia





The problems you talk about are real, but irrelevant to the current situation. It was not speed that led to the submission of the story, rather the person who fabricated and submitted the story did so on purpose and with the malicious intent.
You can read him discuss how he got his fake story to the front-page of digg over here:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=968518
You should also look at this comment, which was what led me to ask the concluding question:
Microdot: The fanboys out there see negative press for the ps3, and it just doesn’t matter. they eat it up.
Speed is a problem in socially driven news (and content) but was not the cause in this case.
This is not a problem. We all know that news isn’t news anymore: it’s entertainment! Fox News and others like them report the facts? Or the most entertaining psudo-facts?
Long live Running Man.
Does any one know how digg does those google ads so they are just one large one at the top?
Jump on to any digg article to see what i mean (cant post links yet)
I have never had a problem doing so!
Duke
There used to be news media who were entrusted with delivery of news and public reaction or opinion. There were few editorials(trying to influence the opinion). Now there are more editorials or story makers. Information overload has created a glut and we are just processing everything …
SEO Industry has been totally corrupted. Social bookmarking websites like Digg have specifically been targetted for getting high PR backlinks. The most notorious companies for gaming Digg are probably the ones you have probably never heard about, promoting stories you probably don’t even suspect. Spikethevote was one such company.
Digg now owns spikethevote (bought from an ebay auction) but I think the $1275 it paid was too high for buying spikethevote.com
The site has never really been proven and it only had 470 backlinks on Google, page rank of 0, and 60 links from blogs.