I have been noticing some complaints on Digg in the past week - from public saying there are too many stories about the iPhone, and they ought to be “buried”.

Some context: Digg is one of the leaders in an exciting new generation of online news systems - exciting considering the readers, not the editors, decide what makes the front page.  Unlike traditional “gate-kept” media such as The New York Times, in which a small group of editors decide what’s fit to print (despite its motto of “all the news that’s fit to print”), Digg reflects what its readers want, who can Digg or Bury every story submitted to the system.

The “burying” is an fundamental, corrective feature, which prevents Digg from being flooded with false, nonsensical, or unimportant stories.

So, why is it being used against stories about

Apparently for no other reason than some readers on Digg feel they have seen decent such stories.  But is that a reason to “bury” them, and not allow other readers to easily see the stories?

All medications run the risk of doing more harm than good in some circumstances, and I would say the planned burying of stories on Digg about the iPhone would be an example of such harm.

The good news, given the excitement by the iPhone, is that stories about it are very likely to keep coming, and the bury brigades will turn their attention to rooting out false and unimportant stories.  And, hey, anyone who loves the iPhone can come on to Digg, and digg all the stories about it!

Original post by Chris