Reuters reported, and PSFK noted, that participation in Web 2.0 may not be what its proponents claim it to be.

According to analysts at Hitwise, “a tiny 0.16 percent of visits to Google’s top video-sharing site, YouTube, are by users seeking to upload video for others to watch”.  Similarly, only .2 percent of visits to Flickr, a popular photo-editing site owned by Yahoo!, are to upload new photos.

The article goes onto claim that the “vast majority of visitors are the Internet equivalent of the television generation’s couch potatoes — voyeurs who like to watch rather than create”.

Personally, I think that this is far to narrow of a perspective for what Web 2.0 is really about.  Yes, creation is a key aspect of next generation websites, but a few statistics showing people are not providing user-generated content to Flickr and Google Videos does not indicate that the Internet has not taken a great leap forward in recent years.

As I’m sure the writers at PSFK would agree, Web 2.0 is more than creation.  In fact, it is more than social networking sites like MySpace and wikis like, well, Wikipedia.  Web 2.0 is about online collaboration, and sometimes that online collaboration is between an a content provider and a content viewer.  However, neither party in this collaboration is passive - one is actively exressing while the other is actively seeking out information…there is nothing “couch potato” about it.

Case in point, Run London.  This is a great example of a Web 2.0 site whereby people could upload their favorite runs throughout London.  It was/is brilliantly simple, easy to navigate, and easy to upload information.  However, when comparing those who wanted to “add” a run vs. “find” a run through London, the large majority fell into the later camp.  They wanted to get information from their peers and not necessarily give information in return.  Nevertheless, this site was user-generated, collaborative, a network by nature and non-linear in approach.

Creation vs. search aside, the thing to note with the Run London example is that its developers knew the passion of running is geographic in nature.  Most people prefer a local route or region of a city they are familiar with over the idea of moving out into uncharted territories.  Accordingly, Nike and AKQA did not build Run World, or Run Britain, but rather focused in on one city to build success that is now easily transferable to Run New York, Run Austin, and Run San Fran. 

Niche.  That is what some Web 2.0 sites have and others don’t.  Flickr doesn’t have it, although they are trying to retrofit it into their model by building niche areas beneath their brand.  Group areas, family network areas, The World Through My Eyes, etc.  I’m sure that if Hitwise cut the data by those who are visiting niche Flickr domains they would discover that content creation increases when people feel part of a niche community. 

Arguably, the idea of global is still a great concept on paper but not easy for people to engage in.  I think the old saying is All Good Politics Are Local.  Same goes for Web 2.0.