{"id":1273,"date":"2009-01-30T13:09:04","date_gmt":"2009-01-30T18:09:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pmedicine.org\/epatients\/?p=1273"},"modified":"2009-01-30T17:15:38","modified_gmt":"2009-01-30T22:15:38","slug":"the-wellsphere-blogging-controversy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/participatorymedicine.org\/epatients\/2009\/01\/the-wellsphere-blogging-controversy.html","title":{"rendered":"The Wellsphere Blogging Controversy"},"content":{"rendered":"
You may have heard of the Wellsphere blogging controversy (if not, here’s one<\/a> take on the issue, and here’s another<\/a> from a different perspective). In a nutshell, Wellsphere went to bloggers in the health world and asked them if they could syndicate their blog entries on the Wellsphere website. In exchange, Wellsphere promised no cash, but additional readership and hopefully, traffic back to the blogger’s blog.<\/p>\n This is neither a stunning nor original business model in the Web 2.0 world. In fact, it’s pretty par for the course. Web 2.0 (and Health 2.0) are predicated on a simple premise — you provide the content, and we (the company) will find a way to monetize it. Whether you’re PatientsLikeMe, DailyStrength, or Facebook, the model is the same. In fact, Dr. Val Jones, who ranted about the practice in her blog entry linked above, is familiar with this model first-hand when she worked as the Senior Medical Director for Revolution Health. Revolution Health’s mantra was “Health 2.0” — an informational website with a healthy dollop of encouraging users to put all of their health information on the site, contribute posts to the site, etc. and expect nothing back in return (except whatever “good feelings” one has for sharing all of that information with the world).<\/p>\n
\nSo I had a difficult time understanding the upset in the blogosphere around this business model, which is at the very core of the Health 2.0 movement.<\/p>\n