By Matthew Palmer
To prove that many sites are "interactive," they tack on
a message board. See? Now you can respond to the stories. An online
community of interested, active might even form. Those types of boards
and that simplistic philosophy show little efforts and results. The
main problem with them is that the comments are usually inane or juvenile.
After reading an excellent article on a news site one day, I was dismayed
to find a message with no more than the words "cool article!"
directly below it in the "Interactive" section.
What would happen if a site were built that started with an online
discussion, instead of adding one as an afterthought? If the site
is like Plastic, it would mean a new generation of online discussion.
Plastic offers a whole range of topics to talk about 177 in
all. It is not just a large chat room, however. Users submit short
synopses of news articles, web sites, or anything interesting. As
Plastic's tagline says, it is "recycling the web in real time."
Message boards sometimes develop around these posts.
The main difference between Plastic and many other online groups
is that not every submitted post is used. Plastic's editors approve
a range of messages they think their users will be interested in.
Moderators (ordinary citizens who get temporarily promoted based on
quality and quantity of posts) have the power to rate some approved
submissions. As a user, you can choose to see all posts, or just the
ones rated as most relevant and interesting. This type of peer review
allows many people to become involved in the site and ensures a variety
of opinions are heard. To promote participation, Plastic offers contests
to accumulate as many "karma" points as you can. You receive
three karma points for every message board post that is approved,
and one point if a moderator thinks highly of your submission. However,
you lose one karma point if your post is obnoxious or useless.
So, with this smartly implemented system, will Plastic be serious
competition for computer, Internet, or news magazines? One argument
is that with so many people submitting and rating, the presentation
of news can be more democratic and open. The power of information
control will be lifted from the hands of a few corporate news giants
and given to the average citizen. This is a largely compelling line
of reasoning; with the advance of technology from movable type to
ham radios to desktop publishing to the Internet, the trend has been
to empower the people. While this system works well for PTA newsletters
and online opinions, the reporting of news is a very different matter.
After this review, I don't expect to continue using my new Plastic
account. Mostly that is a result of my hectic schedule. I will still
visit the traditional newspapers online for an experienced, unbiased
breakdown the day's top stories. Plastic offers an interesting smattering
of news and current events, but cannot compete on that level.
The creators, however, may not be trying to compete in that way.
All of the news posts have prominent links back to the source material
they are referring to. The most interesting parts of the site are
often not the starter posts, but the variety of reactions people post
to them. As an online current events forum, Plastic could have a future
you can take to the bank.