The 2-infix notation de jour is P2P, or peer-to-peer networking. From The Standard to Business 2.0 to O'Reilly & Associates to Intel, everyone's talking about peer-to-peer. Though technologies such as Napster are a part of this movement, Nielsen makes the case that content generated by Everywoman, for Everyman (and vice versa), not merely copied and placed, is what will really make this click.
Nielsen points to Geocities as one of the great experiements (and, largely, wastelands) of this initiative. K5 and Slashdot are definitely part of the picture. My own employer's software, (shameless plug alert)
AllCommerce, is part of the movement.
The main emphasis of Nielsen's essay is in guiding content creation. A series of rants here at K5 shows that there is a level of ambiguity (not that this is a bad thing) over what's appropriate content, presentation, and categorization for K5. A web and Usenet search this morning at work turned up a number of people who've downloaded and installed our own product, and are trying to figure out how to use it -- how do you go from having the software to populating it and creating a working ecommerce site. While we've created a powerful tool, applications are somewhat in the hands of the user (or our Professional Services department).
So, thesis question: What works and doesn't work in terms of providing guidance to popular use and adaptation of this medium? Slashdot uses an editorial staff to review and select stories. K5 has a mix of technical (submission queue, moderation system) and social (public outcry, rants, dare I say: humiliation) mecahnisms. AllCommerce hasn't really addressed the site design issue yet -- we're using a tabla rasa approach. How much freedom (or guidance) is enough, what's too much?