Interview with Ricardo Galli
"The great challenge is learning to read on the Internet, without being sceptical and knowing how to compare"
June , 2007 / By Leo Ruffini, industrial engineer and journalist
Ricardo Galli
The Internet contains millions of blogs, and hanging from every single are numerous articles, some
of them brilliant, others trivial. The question is how do you filter the most interesting without
reading the rest. A year and a half ago, Ricardo Galli, IT lecturer at the University of the
Balearic Islands (UIB), came up with the answer, namely Meneame.net, a website to which anyone can
send a piece of news and anyone can "menear" (recommend) it or advise against it. Depending on
these opinions, it will strike it lucky and make its way up to the site?s homepage or, to the
contrary, fall into oblivion.
At the end of May, Galli was at the UOC, where he reflected on how the Web 2.0 could enhance the
community experience of an online university. However, he preferred to conduct the interview by
e-mail: "I'm no good with synchronous media: I like the comfort of the asynchronous nature of
e-mail." The Internet is changing journalism.
How did Menéame come about?
Slashdot.org had its clone here at Barrapunto.com; Kuro5hin.org, at Libertonia.org. Why didn't Digg have it? The difference is that this last one hadn't released its software. I noticed that the best thing about Digg was its simplicity and how easy it was to register and post news. I also quickly realised that technically speaking developing a similar system wasn't so complicated. So, in a moment of stupidity I decided to set up a similar site. I never would have imagined the amount of work and time it would take up. Now I don't know if I'd have the strength to do it again…
What sets apart the contents in Menéame that are successful?
Hum... How could I define it? At first, they were very technical but, as the audience and users began to grow, the topic began to expand and become less clear. Without fear of getting it too wrong, I'd say that news relating to digital culture and, above all, criticisms about organisation such as the SGAE are usually popular.
Which post has received more "recommendations"? Has there been any type of behaviour by the community that has surprised you?
You can consult the most voted stories by periods at http://meneame.net/topstories.php. The outright winners up to now are the campaign for the "son-of-a-bitch on Eurovision" and "the girl with the stain in her hair". These two posts surprised me and another ironical one that I wrote, criticising Menéame, but with well argumented fallacies. It was called: "What a load of crap Menéame is, it's shite". When it comes to criticising, especially the site that you go to regularly, people are much less sceptical.
What's the Menéame community like? What have they got in common? For example, contrary to the general trend, most users access the site using Mozilla Firefox.
I don't know if they've got a lot in common, but one thing I am sure about is that they’re advanced, habitual Internet users. Maybe that explains why they use Firefox…
Does anyone try to abuse the system?
Yes, it's an everyday problem. One of them has even created over 60 users to promote their blog. You plug a hole and new ones and ever more refined tricks appear. This has meant that we have a lot of controls to prevent abuses, such as the latest: http://blog.meneame.net/2007/06/05/control-de-diversidad-de-fuentes/.
Two decades ago, it was difficult to publish in whichever medium. Today, anyone can post contents on the Web and so much information is generated. Is the great challenge separating the wheat from the chaff?
That's possibly why sites such as Digg, Menéame or others operate, where there are people who choose what is published. However, for me the great challenge is one of education: learning to read on the Internet, being sceptical and comparing ourselves. Not waiting for someone to give it to us already packaged, so that we believe everything.
At Digg, the site that inspired you to create Menéame, the profile of a post is directly proportional to the number of votes it gets. For Menéame, however, you took the trouble to programme an algorithm that gives more value to votes of users with greater "karma", in other words, people who have been more accurate when posting or voting. How do you feel that this has improved selection?
It's not true that Digg is purely vote-based. They use more complex algorithms, but what happens is that they don't try and explain it away by saying that this prevents system abuse. At Menéame, we also use other algorithms whose most representative value is the karma, and this is visible to everyone. Apart from being free software and being published, the algorithm is also well known. In systems such as Digg/Menéame, you can't just value the votes, as this would lead to a lot of abuse, especially in the case of Menéame, which allows anonymous voting. Karma is just a sample of the result that comes from applying complex algorithms, which also serves to give a "bonus" to the news when it has a very high voting frequency, and so enables it to appear on the home page sooner.
Do you think that a similar system would improve our parliamentary democracy?
Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy. That of Menéame is practically a direct democracy. For serious matters, I prefer the representative one: otherwise we would waste a lot of time on "flare-ups" and we’d have a couple of civil wars every day. Menéame shows that! The problem with our democracy is the professionalisation of it, not the model in itself. Everything is aggravated with the apparent deep subnormality of the ones who have to take the decisions. I say this because right now I'm remembering "the minister of thing", a great friend of pseudo-cultural glamour but not of culture.
The Web 2.0 gives more relevance to the more widely seen contents. Aren't you worried that it will end up like television, where the importance of ratings means the vast majority of the scheduling is tittle-tattle, shocking images and football?
I don't know, but there are fundamental differences. On TV, it's just a few who decide, and it's generally based on economic criteria. Although we have economic interests, on Menéame our vote counts as one more. The difference is radical. Although this in itself doesn't ensure "quality", the result cannot be the same. But I'm also sceptical with those who try to define what quality is.
Meneame.net came about as a site that selected the best contents of the entire blog universe. After a year and half, has this selection gone where you thought it would? Or has it taken an unexpected direction? I say this because as well as blog articles, there is lots of news directly linked to the mass media.
It's taken directions that are perhaps unexpected but in no way planned.
What has been the most relevant conclusion that you’ve drawn from the Menéame experience?
Administrating a Menéame is like managing a community: it's a huge amount of work and requires a lot of patience and, in some cases, taking tough and unpopular decisions. You have to wear asbestos underpants. But it's much more fun and exciting than I ever would have imagined. I suppose it's the same as the forum and IRC channel administrators felt.
A short while ago, the philosopher Alejandro Piscitelli said that we were living through the second Internet bubble and that, just as the bursting of the first frustrated anyone hoping to make millions, the second will cheat everyone placing their trust in collective intelligence, where readers can act as editors. Do you agree with him in that we expect too much from the Web 2.0? Or do you think that, taking it to the other extreme, it can change the world?
I don't agree with people who are always seeing bubbles. Throughout the entire history of mankind, there have only been five bubbles, and it even appears that one of them – the one about Dutch tulips – didn't become a bubble.
Besides this, we could have made a packet already and we haven't. I don't know if we'll end up richer or poorer, nor is it one of our priorities thinking like that, although I hope we end up with more money than when we went in. The good thing is that right now it doesn't seem too difficult.
As regards "expect too much" from the Web 2.0, I don't know. If they want, let them carry on with their erudite disaster or triumphalist forecasts. In the meantime, we're having a ball. Carpe diem.
In any event, and without wanting to change the world, how do you think that the Web 2.0 can help a university, beyond forums and blogs?
In the case of the UOC, I think that it is fundamental to create a community space and be able to make the students' critique and thinking reach the powers that be, who they almost never see, with greater clarity and force. The Web 2.0 can help online universities more than anyone. In fact, I don't know why they’re taking so long.
You define Wikipedia as "a Spanish free software activist". What is that exactly? How does it act?
I've been promoting free software for years with such activities, for example, as giving papers. Since Menéame came out, I've almost had no time to do it, but I think that I carry out the best activism: I released all of its code.
Now that Meneame.net is a reality, do you have any other project in mind?
I don't even have time to think about it!
This work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 2.5 licence. It may be copied, distributed and broadcast provided that the author and the source are cited. Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted. The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/es/deed.en.
How did Menéame come about?
Slashdot.org had its clone here at Barrapunto.com; Kuro5hin.org, at Libertonia.org. Why didn't Digg have it? The difference is that this last one hadn't released its software. I noticed that the best thing about Digg was its simplicity and how easy it was to register and post news. I also quickly realised that technically speaking developing a similar system wasn't so complicated. So, in a moment of stupidity I decided to set up a similar site. I never would have imagined the amount of work and time it would take up. Now I don't know if I'd have the strength to do it again…
What sets apart the contents in Menéame that are successful?
Hum... How could I define it? At first, they were very technical but, as the audience and users began to grow, the topic began to expand and become less clear. Without fear of getting it too wrong, I'd say that news relating to digital culture and, above all, criticisms about organisation such as the SGAE are usually popular.
Which post has received more "recommendations"? Has there been any type of behaviour by the community that has surprised you?
You can consult the most voted stories by periods at http://meneame.net/topstories.php. The outright winners up to now are the campaign for the "son-of-a-bitch on Eurovision" and "the girl with the stain in her hair". These two posts surprised me and another ironical one that I wrote, criticising Menéame, but with well argumented fallacies. It was called: "What a load of crap Menéame is, it's shite". When it comes to criticising, especially the site that you go to regularly, people are much less sceptical.
What's the Menéame community like? What have they got in common? For example, contrary to the general trend, most users access the site using Mozilla Firefox.
I don't know if they've got a lot in common, but one thing I am sure about is that they’re advanced, habitual Internet users. Maybe that explains why they use Firefox…
Does anyone try to abuse the system?
Yes, it's an everyday problem. One of them has even created over 60 users to promote their blog. You plug a hole and new ones and ever more refined tricks appear. This has meant that we have a lot of controls to prevent abuses, such as the latest: http://blog.meneame.net/2007/06/05/control-de-diversidad-de-fuentes/.
Two decades ago, it was difficult to publish in whichever medium. Today, anyone can post contents on the Web and so much information is generated. Is the great challenge separating the wheat from the chaff?
That's possibly why sites such as Digg, Menéame or others operate, where there are people who choose what is published. However, for me the great challenge is one of education: learning to read on the Internet, being sceptical and comparing ourselves. Not waiting for someone to give it to us already packaged, so that we believe everything.
At Digg, the site that inspired you to create Menéame, the profile of a post is directly proportional to the number of votes it gets. For Menéame, however, you took the trouble to programme an algorithm that gives more value to votes of users with greater "karma", in other words, people who have been more accurate when posting or voting. How do you feel that this has improved selection?
It's not true that Digg is purely vote-based. They use more complex algorithms, but what happens is that they don't try and explain it away by saying that this prevents system abuse. At Menéame, we also use other algorithms whose most representative value is the karma, and this is visible to everyone. Apart from being free software and being published, the algorithm is also well known. In systems such as Digg/Menéame, you can't just value the votes, as this would lead to a lot of abuse, especially in the case of Menéame, which allows anonymous voting. Karma is just a sample of the result that comes from applying complex algorithms, which also serves to give a "bonus" to the news when it has a very high voting frequency, and so enables it to appear on the home page sooner.
Do you think that a similar system would improve our parliamentary democracy?
Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy. That of Menéame is practically a direct democracy. For serious matters, I prefer the representative one: otherwise we would waste a lot of time on "flare-ups" and we’d have a couple of civil wars every day. Menéame shows that! The problem with our democracy is the professionalisation of it, not the model in itself. Everything is aggravated with the apparent deep subnormality of the ones who have to take the decisions. I say this because right now I'm remembering "the minister of thing", a great friend of pseudo-cultural glamour but not of culture.
The Web 2.0 gives more relevance to the more widely seen contents. Aren't you worried that it will end up like television, where the importance of ratings means the vast majority of the scheduling is tittle-tattle, shocking images and football?
I don't know, but there are fundamental differences. On TV, it's just a few who decide, and it's generally based on economic criteria. Although we have economic interests, on Menéame our vote counts as one more. The difference is radical. Although this in itself doesn't ensure "quality", the result cannot be the same. But I'm also sceptical with those who try to define what quality is.
Meneame.net came about as a site that selected the best contents of the entire blog universe. After a year and half, has this selection gone where you thought it would? Or has it taken an unexpected direction? I say this because as well as blog articles, there is lots of news directly linked to the mass media.
It's taken directions that are perhaps unexpected but in no way planned.
What has been the most relevant conclusion that you’ve drawn from the Menéame experience?
Administrating a Menéame is like managing a community: it's a huge amount of work and requires a lot of patience and, in some cases, taking tough and unpopular decisions. You have to wear asbestos underpants. But it's much more fun and exciting than I ever would have imagined. I suppose it's the same as the forum and IRC channel administrators felt.
A short while ago, the philosopher Alejandro Piscitelli said that we were living through the second Internet bubble and that, just as the bursting of the first frustrated anyone hoping to make millions, the second will cheat everyone placing their trust in collective intelligence, where readers can act as editors. Do you agree with him in that we expect too much from the Web 2.0? Or do you think that, taking it to the other extreme, it can change the world?
I don't agree with people who are always seeing bubbles. Throughout the entire history of mankind, there have only been five bubbles, and it even appears that one of them – the one about Dutch tulips – didn't become a bubble.
Besides this, we could have made a packet already and we haven't. I don't know if we'll end up richer or poorer, nor is it one of our priorities thinking like that, although I hope we end up with more money than when we went in. The good thing is that right now it doesn't seem too difficult.
As regards "expect too much" from the Web 2.0, I don't know. If they want, let them carry on with their erudite disaster or triumphalist forecasts. In the meantime, we're having a ball. Carpe diem.
In any event, and without wanting to change the world, how do you think that the Web 2.0 can help a university, beyond forums and blogs?
In the case of the UOC, I think that it is fundamental to create a community space and be able to make the students' critique and thinking reach the powers that be, who they almost never see, with greater clarity and force. The Web 2.0 can help online universities more than anyone. In fact, I don't know why they’re taking so long.
You define Wikipedia as "a Spanish free software activist". What is that exactly? How does it act?
I've been promoting free software for years with such activities, for example, as giving papers. Since Menéame came out, I've almost had no time to do it, but I think that I carry out the best activism: I released all of its code.
Now that Meneame.net is a reality, do you have any other project in mind?
I don't even have time to think about it!
This work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 2.5 licence. It may be copied, distributed and broadcast provided that the author and the source are cited. Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted. The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/es/deed.en.