Where stands literature in the age of New Media? Check out Urbis. Conceived in the mid 2000s, Urbis is a means for writers to kindle their craft as the New Media generation demands vigorous creativity and uniquity. Essentially, Urbis is a social network for writers to share and critique each others’ poetry and prose. But what makes this network unique is its complex crediting system.

Each new member is granted with a number of credits. And as one member uploads a piece of literature, another member can critique it. The critique will remain hidden to the intended author, who must spend an amount of credits proportional to the word-length of the critique. Credits may be received by critiquing another member’s literature. Again, credits are proportional to the word-length of the critique, so a longer critique yields a greater credit income. Abuse of this system has led to the implementation of some checks and balances. If a critique is great, the author can mark it as “helpful”. If the critique is bogus, skimpy, or in other ways not helpful, the author can report it as inappropriate and refund his or her credits.

The idea of this crediting system is to promote constructive criticism. A writer joins Urbis to perfect his or her abilities and wants to know what others think of his or her literature. Urbis gives that luxury to the writer only if the writer gives it to others. And theoretically, this whole process of constructive criticism should cultivate better writers.

What appears to make this system so effective is its bound structure. Urbis users are inherently forced to interact in a specific fashion—in this case to provide constructive criticism—or else bankrupt their ability to interact. Juxtapose this to a free commenting system like that of deviantART and notice the stark difference in commenting diligence. Most Urbis comments are lengthy and substantial, whereas the typical DeviantART comment consists of a pat on the back or a trivial emoticon, nothing genuinely beneficial to the artist.

What if more websites harnessed this concept of economy? By providing a service in which users must reciprocate with a mutually substantial service, we might see more constructive thought flowing through the internet. Perhaps we would see less ad hominem attacks on political forums. Perhaps we would see more insightful comments to news articles. If websites could somehow regulate user contributions through economic systems like that of Urbis, as opposed to open forums or manual regulation, the internet might experience a more productive use of its existence.