Considering the lecture this week, I figured it would be a good opportunity to comment on what Web 2.0 really is to me. I side with Tim Berners-Lee on the subject, it is just jargon. The concept of "Web 2.0" is what Lee wanted from the Web to begin with. People have always been connected to people through the Web, I feel as though the tools are just becoming more advanced to achieve the same goal. It is in our nature to connect with people as much as possible, and whenever possible.
This is not to say I think the Web has not advanced, it undoubtedly has. I just believe in giving credit where credit is due. Things like Blogs and Wikis have changed things greatly, giving more power to people who wish to create and distribute content (and considering the mass opinion of the News Media, this does not surprise me). We have been increasing the size and scope of the Web since the project began, just consider the transition from strictly lab use to allowing everyone to take part. The Web grows in size on a daily basis, and seems to be something that if allowed will never stop growing (take that, Skynet!).
So call it what you will, but I think the Web does not require a "2.0". The Web continues to expand, and is constantly evolving. It grows in such a fashion that we cannot begin to detect it's impact until months after the growth actually happened. There is no way to predict what the next big thing will be, but rest assured that people will make the Web continue to grow and evolve.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
While we have learned that Web 2.0 exists, does every other user of the internet know? Probably not.
I agree with the whole "2.0" label. It is complete jargon. So what if it contains new technologies. That alone doesn't justify changing the name. It is called evolution.
I completely agree with you on every single point John. I think Web 2.0 is just a buzz word. People are already talking about Web 3.0.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-30.htm
The Web is always changing. A new version of it to make it sound more advanced is unnecessary.
Web 2.0 is just a name for the evolved version of Web 1.0, however, I don't think any other name is more suitable since 1.0 is the foundation. Did Berners-Lee not think that his original idea would not be built upon? He would have been silly to think that. Giving 2.0 another name would just confuse most people. Look at how many people call the 'web' the 'internet'. 2.0 is a more advanced version of the world wide web and deserves it's name because of this. The only reason Berners-Lee does not want 1.0 associated with 2.0 is because he did not develop the ideas and technology behind 2.0.
Tim-Berners Lee surely thought the idea would evolve, and it was bound to be used for these purposes eventually. However, "Web 2.0" is just a buzz word, used to name a conference. There are so many problems with labeling new "versions" of the Web. What are the standards for new versions? Who decides what signifies a big enough change to give a new version number? With questions like these, it would be less confusing to just call it the Web and be done with it.
I see merit to both sides of the debate. On the one hand, Web 2.0 is a term that has excited a lot of seemingly needless discussion and clarification. It has left many people confused and stimulated numerous attempts at explanation. While it may be annoying, this dialog is not necessarily a useless thing. At the very least, it may strengthen some people's understanding of how the Web works.
Personally, I think there is some value in the labels Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. It is an easy way to make a distinction between two phases in the Web’s evolution. No, these terms don’t need to be officially recognized and defined, but I think they can be useful in a Web related discussion. Why do we use terms like “digital native,” “digital immigrant” and “digital settler?” In research and discussion, these terms are useful in identifying specific groups and separating them into logical categories.
Post a Comment