I don't really relate to anything in this statement. I know that Jimmy Wales has accomplished great things on the web, particularly with wikipedia - and i have great respect for that. But this particular statement seems to be the kind of thing you say to an audience that really has no idea and will just agree with whatever you say.

For one, a lot of Web 2.0 content is still about silly stuff, who is he kidding. And angry ranting blogs most certainly still persist - and that is a good thing! i hope those angry ranting blogs never go away...they are an important voice in the global conversation.

And to say that the quality of the content is equal to magazines and television is just odd. I don't see the content coming out of the social web having any correlation to magazines or television that would justify any comparison, either good or bad...they're just very different.

I've never really thought about Web 2.0 in terms of hierarchy, or as Jimmy mentioned - too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I actually think the freedom, and ability to develop, and make that immediately accessible is a beautiful thing. Developers at large companies often go through years of testing and tweaking, and often the process to completion becomes so long that the scope changes before the software is live.

Obviously, there are a lot of negatives when you don't have a formal testing process, but feedback is often instant. There's a lot of crappy Web 2.0 apps out there, but the benefit to the user and developer regardless of the quality is very useful.

Well, equating quality content to magazines and newspapers--I finding that ROFL! When did magazines and newspapers become noted for quality content out of the millions out there? My local daily newspaper for the most part is a yellow-sheet rag. The only quality magazine I can think of might be the National Geographic.