Some hold this as a Web 2.0 vs. 1.0 confrontation, which isn’t the case in my opinion.
I think that I probably want something that goes a little further.
With Slashdot, you get a bunch of editors who control the world. This role is important, in that it keeps a theme, and can keep up quality. It is like the role of an editor in a paper. If you like the editors, you are going to love Slashdot.
With Digg, the community is acting as the editor. This sounds great doesn’t it? Very Web 2.0 from a “partipation” standpoint.
This has a similar drawback to the editor world though. If you are in the majority (in this case, 14 to 24 year old geeks?) then you will also love the site. If you are NOT in that niche though, a lot of crud shows up. This is often the case for me. Something dumb that has the words “Digg” or “Apple” will be front page news for sure. Relying on “the people” doesn’t make this the site for you. Think of all of the immature muppets on Slashdot, and think about THEM being in control :)
In my ideal world, I would have a model that was a bit between the two. I want editors. I want them to be people I trust. Therefore, if we took the “what my friends digg” further, I could choose my editors/peers just via OPML, and ratings in my OPML.
Then I get a potentially large group (friends of a friend of a friend kinda stuff can work here), but I also get content that I actually will care about.
Maybe Digg will use some of it’s $20+MM on this? ;)