

Why I Think (And Hope) Qwiki Will Fail - skbohra123
http://brianstorms.com/2010/09/why-i-think-and-hope-qwiki-will-fail.html

======
peteforde
I haven't been given an account on the Qwiki beta yet, so I haven't actually
played with it. However, any time someone tells me I'm "drowning in data" I
get ready for a fight.

Quite simply, we're not drowning in data. Data is the best hope we have to
save us from the rise of multiple-choice questions at the college level.

[http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mccandless_the_beauty_of_data...](http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mccandless_the_beauty_of_data_visualization.html)

I'm all for tools that make data easier to find, tame and publish. Yet, spoken
word generated by a computer is an incredibly low bandwidth way to learn
anything. Those of you with accounts, what am I missing?

~~~
pedalpete
I believe you are looking for the difference between information and data. Not
worth fighting over.

Data is raw material, information is data put into context.

I suspect/hope that Qwiki is trying to do the later. We are over our heads in
data, but at the same time we are suffocated by what poses as information. I
would argue that we need the ability to turn data into information which suits
our purposes.

I think good examples are 'What's the weather for the next 4 days in the
places I'm going to be. ' or products like flighcast which tells you if the
airline ticket you are looking at buying is likely going to do up or down in
price.

~~~
Gormo
Only the mind itself can process data into information - we apply a relevance
filter to our perceptions and link related concepts together. That means that
exposure to more data gives us better-trained filters and more, deeper
connections between concepts.

In other words, we become better at thinking and making judgments when we are
exposed to more and more data.

To say that "we are over our heads in data" is to see value in only in the the
consumption of static, general knowledge, rather than in the ability to
synthesize specific and relevant information.

------
nene
What is a Qwiki anyway?

It's probably not this Quantum Physics Wiki: <http://qwiki.stanford.edu/>

~~~
jeromec
<http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9900486>

------
izendejas
What some deem "useless" or "bad" ideas can evolve to become very useful.
Twitter, is a great example. Very few thought they'd succeed. Now they're huge
and growing and I bet 5 years from now, they'll be doing things even their
founders can't imagine.

Likewise, whether Qwiki survives is independent of their idea, but rather
their ability to adapt their product to customer needs and above all, their
ability to execute.

------
HowardRoark
I thought Qwiki isn't meant to replace Google. And yet it can make certain
kind of information retrieval sexier and very helpful - esp. when you might be
multitasking. It can very well focus in a vertical markets where it solves the
problem well. It doesn't have to fail. Or it might fail but the idea will
prevail.

------
aberkowitz
Why would you hope a startup fails?

~~~
chmike
Exactly. There is a big difference in saying, "i wish they fail" and "this is
an idea that will probably fail". The author is lacking the humility to be
aware that his analysis might be wrong. I thought twitter would fail and I was
proven wrong. This is because I analyzed it from my personal perspective for
witch twitter doesn't fit. But undoubtfully twitter provides a significant
added value to many other people. Good for them and I still don't use twitter.
But i would never say "I hope they fail". If all humains thought this way we
would still be carving stone to get tools (tailler des cailloux).

Text (occidental) is not an efficient information channel. Why do all
companies have a logo or distinctive simple image ? Because people can't read
? No beause one gets the message in the same time and effort it takes to read
one letter.

So ther is definitely an added value to gain in this direction. It is not sure
yet if Qwiki is the best way, but it is surely worth exploring and testing
this. We underuse our visual and auditive senses in actual software.
Technology capability has apparently evolved faster then our User interface
exploitation.

~~~
brianstorms
I was quite conscious of what I said and what I meant: based on my 30 years
experience doing software and online apps and startups of my own, and based on
what the Qwiki guys actually claimed and showed on stage, I think the service
will fail, and I hope the service fails, and I worry if it succeeds.

Sure there are compelling ideas there, absolutely. Sure, used in moderation,
some of the capabilities demoed would be beneficial.

But I maintain that their "information experience" hype is a hustle that has
not been well thought out.

~~~
cj
" _I hope the service fails, and I worry if it succeeds._ "

Why? What is the point of hoping it to fail? And why would you be worried if
it succeeded? If you could answer the latter questions with any sort of logic
I would be impressed.

If Qwiki succeeds, _some number of people like their product_. If people like
their product, than Qwiki _added value_ for those people.

So the question is, are you against Qwiki's intrinsic value proposition and
offering, even though people might find it valuable? Or are you just against
it because you don't think people will find it valuable?

If it is the latter, you should reword your story, title, and comment.

~~~
brianstorms
I explain all this in my blog post. My beef with Qwiki is that it dumbs down
comprehension, critical thinking, analysis, and learning. It multimediaizes
Wikipedia, an unreliable source. If it succeeds on a large scale, it and the
inevitable copycats will all combined contribute to hurting society more than
helping it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether people like it. Of
course people will like it. Just like they like 4000-calorie fast-food meals.
Doesn't mean it's good for humanity.

~~~
cj
People learn and analyze in different ways. Many sources cite three:
auditorily (sp?), visually, and/or kinesthetically.

Could people who think better visually be underserved by text-only sources?

I think the fear you cite is too early to substantiate. I'd equate it to the
fear of facebook/aim/texting destroying face to face (or voice to voice)
communication.

------
alinajaf
Am I the only one who saw this, went over to Qwiki and started drooling at how
sci-fi it is?

~~~
wdewind
Nope, but then I saw them do the live demos from the audience and was pretty
disappointed. The canned ones performed significantly better.

------
danielha
I have no real opinion about Qwiki yet, but that was an awful awful article.
And he hopes it'll fail because it might not meet his perceived standards?

------
bretthellman
My Grandma will love Qwiki

------
hkuo
Ugh!!!! This guy is so full of stupid it hurts. Ok, let me not fall into rant
mode and just be nice and logical.

The fallacy some people fall into when presented with a new product or service
is to make an assumption that this new product or service is meant to replace
current methods......entirely. It's a black or white world to these people.
What you should be thinking instead is how this service could e utilized in a
more useful way than SOME current methods of doing things. This is the same
crap I read when augmented reality was coming about. Stop thinking A versus B
and start thinking A + B!

Regarding the authors rant, of course a wikipedia type page of text has huge
advantages when wanting to learn about a subject. But there can be times when
Qwiki's method will be advantageous too! For example, what if Qwiki became
embedded into interactive TV products. I'm sitting on the couch, watching
Mythbusters, nowhere near my computer, and a term is brought up that I'm
unfamiliar with. I could pause the tv and initiate Qwiki through a voice
command and, still in my sunken-into-couch-ain't-willing-to-move-an-inch
position, I can sit through a quick brief on said term before continuing with
the show. That's just one example and there will be many more.

So again, stop it with the this versus that thinking!!!!! It's so simple- and
single-minded! See the pluses and minuses with every solution and consider how
each can serve in different scenarios!

~~~
brianstorms
I based my critique on what Doug Imbruce and Louis Monier actually said and
showed in their brief demo.

You should re-read my piece. The whole thing. It's actually full of the
appreciation for nuance and shades of gray. My worry is that Qwiki will not
be.

By the way, your couch potato scenario makes me wonder if you have seen
"Wall-E" and "Idiocracy". While you're in your couch there, check 'em out.

~~~
hkuo
Sorry, I don't care about all the downvotes. I did in fact read your entire
article. Your quote:

"It needs to fail. This is not the right way for us to go forward."

You're basically hoping completely that this will in fact fail entirely,
without understanding how it could be useful for some people in some
scenarios.

Attacking me on a personal level in your comment is also very simple-minded.
You have no clue about the kind of person I am, what kind of activities I'm
involved in, yet you've already made the assumption that I'm a lazy-ass fat
person as portrayed in Wall-E. I'm the exact opposite. I run. I bike. I go to
the gym very often. But there are indeed times in some days where I'm tired
and want to veg-out, and in those times, I will want to plop on a couch and
just watch some television.

Go ahead and downvote me all you want. For your sake, you should at least
allow the possibility that you're thinking is wrong. By stating "it needs to
fail", you basically hope no one will ever find their product useful, without
seeing how people in the real world will react to it in the first place.

If you can, please give me some feedback on the A versus B / A+B thinking that
I hope people practice, rather than trying to compare one thing versus
another, choose the one that is mostly better, and hope the other goes away.
The world is full enough for people to make use of a multitude of products and
services to fulfill their needs and desires, and the way you choose to do so
isn't the holy grail of how to live one's life.

