I’ve been toying with an idea for a while, and replying on another blog (Rocky Agrawal’s reDesign)reminded me to post.
In years gone by media, advertisers and consumers relied on experts to guide choices. (Think a man in a white coat proclaiming the strength of a particular washing powder
Now everyone is proclaiming the age of the user and peer expert. The bloke just like you who happens to be an expert in a particular subject, and on a forum or wiki of similar experts, can offer better advice than ever before.
If anyone can explain why it has to be one, or the other, and not both combined, please feel free? The traditional ‘expert’ is perceived to be answering off the top of their head, and therefore prone to mistakes and bias. Meanwhile the user is supposed to be fair, impartial, and able to reach a valuable conclusion.
Flaws:
1. Any real expert will not only have an idea of the answer, but more importantly will have a good idea of the best places to research an answer. More often than not, they’ll confer with trusted colleagues anyway, and then present back results.
2. It presumes every question will be adequately resolved in a forum thread or Wiki entry, and won’t meander forever, with no definitive answer.
3. If you’ve got time to involve yourself in a forum, and learn who is expert, who is trusted, and who is out for mischief etc, you’re fine. If you haven’t got time to do all this, you’re stuck. You have to sit around until the majority decide. And even then, majorities can be quite stupid sometimes. Meanwhile an expert in the field could have pointed you to the answer, other experts, and references.
One thing the the new www.motorcyclenews.com site from my employers at Emap does well is to present professional and user content side-by-side, and mix user forum posts with experts from the motorcycling industry. Being able to combine all forms of knowledge will always be more valuable than selecting just one.
