In reply to: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/a-very-brief-history-of-the-last-10-years-in-technology/526767/
Nowadays, (hyper)linking is an afterthought because most of the action occurs within platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and messaging apps, which all have carved space out of the open web. And the idea of “harnessing collective intelligence” simply feels much more interesting and productive than it does now. The great cathedrals of that time, nearly impossible projects like Wikipedia that worked and worked well, have all stagnated. And the portrait of humanity that most people see filtering through the mechanics of Facebook or Twitter does not exactly inspire confidence in our social co-productions.
Has wikipedia stagnated? Is that the general consensus? I totes get that it is sort of a white-sausage-fest. But stagnated? Compared to Facebook and other walled gardens? I think that depends on perspective, maybe…or how you interact with wikipedia as a resource, perhaps?