Worker.digital.info

The article below introduced me to a couple of new concepts -- transclusion and transcopyright -- and makes a pretty good argument for why such concepts are flawed.

[...]Ted Nelson's concepts of transclusion and transcopyright belong to a similar paradigm where content is value and links are mere mechanics, an outside vehicle for the transmittal of content rather than the item of value itself. In its fully implemented state, transcopyright sees a link from A to B as A using something owned by B, which readers should pay for in the form of a micropayment. This makes perfect sense in a traditional, product oriented economy where content is king. B manufactured a product which As readers consumed and should therefore pay for. After Google, it makes no sense at all. The economy of links is not product oriented. It is service oriented, and the service is the link. The link is an action rather than an item; an event, rather than a metaphor [...]

This puts things in a perspective I never considered. I suspect the treatise will fall on a lot of deaf ears (the Danish Newspaper Association?) but with the rise of more google-like entities it is only a matter of time before online resources that refuse links become isolated and rarely-traveled bypasses on the web.

The value of linking.

Links and Power: The Political Economy of Linking on the Web. (SOURCE:a klog apart)-Where does Phil get this articles? Thanks!Search engines like Google interpret links to a web page as objective, peer-endorsed and machine-readable signs of value. Links have become the currency of the Web. With this economic value they also have power, affecting accessibility and knowledge on the Web. [Roland Tanglao's Weblog]

Looks as though I missed this the first time round. Thank you Roland for catching it this time. [McGee's Musings]