Am I a Web 2.0 sceptic?
Posted on | April 17, 2007 | 5 Comments
Not that I don’t like the things that are referred to as Web 2.0 – on the contrary, a lot of it are really useful stuff, such as Wikis, blogs, pod-cast and so on. But are they really new and does Web 2.0 really exist? Or is it just a collective name and a number of buzzwords for something that has actually been around for quite a while? It is very hard to find useful and non-fuzzy definitions of Web 2.0.
There is actually a debate out there with a lot of different opinions on the matter, such as (most of those references are from Wikipedia ):
- Nate Anderson (2006-09-01). Tim Berners-Lee on Web 2.0: "nobody even knows what it means". Retrieved on 2006 September 5.
- The Enzyme that Won. The Economist (2006-05-11). Retrieved on 2006 August 6.
- Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka (2007-01-11). The Hogosphere: "Web 2.0: No Thanks, I’m Holding Out for Web 3.0". Something Awful. Retrieved on 2007 January 2.
- Paul Boutin (2006-03-29). The new Internet "boom" doesn’t live up to its name. Slate.com. Retrieved on 2006 August 6.
- Russell Shaw (2005-12-17). Web 2.0? It doesn’t exist. ZDNet. Retrieved on 2006 August 6.
- Andrew Orlowski (2005-10-21). Web 2.0: It’s … like your brain on LSD!. The Register. Retrieved on 2006 August 6.
- Nicholas G. Carr (2005-10-03). The amorality of Web 2.0. Retrieved on 2006 August 6.
- Paul Anderson (2007-02-27). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. Retrieved on 2007 March 15.
I found this picture by Jürgen Schiller Garica , and it gives a nice perspective.
My point being that there are several reasons for being critical and reflective (not only considering Web 2.0 though). This is unfortunately not always the strongest quality of the educational- and learning technology community (which I consider myself a part of). Whether Web 2.0 exists or not is for you to decide for your self. What I would really like have is a roadmap to Web 3.0. When can I upgrade??
Comments
5 Responses to “Am I a Web 2.0 sceptic?”
April 17th, 2007 @ 23:21
This is sound reasoning. The Internet is developing continously and there is nothing new in Web 2.0 and i think is more a term to say to people that finance different projects that this is a “hip” project and your money is in the frontline.
I think there is a danger in framing the development in a certain direction, since it will make people think in a box. So being a critic of web 2.0 i think is sane. It doesnt necessary mean that you are a critic to different projects and ideas that say they are web 2.0
Good ideas are good ideas what ever they are called…
April 18th, 2007 @ 08:13
Yeah, Web 2.0 is a buzzword, but that is a good thing. It means there is a collective need to find a common language with which to refer to a collection of thoughts and technologies that have been around for quite some time. The thoughts and the technology that is referred to using the name Web 2.0 have been around for quite some time, and Fredrik Paulsson has been one of the pioneers in that area. What is happening now is that there is a sudden need, in the mainstream of human thought, to refer to these concepts in everyday language. People outside the edge of thinking, outside the academic institutions, research labs and start-up companies are beginning to discuss and innovate, and they need words that quickly convey a whole set of concepts, because the thinking is happening on a whole new level of abstraction.
You don’t need to know what XMLHttpRequest is to understand that there is a whole bunch of cool stuff you could do if you combined [Second Life](http://www.secondlife.com) with [SmartBoards](http://www.smartboard.com) and [Unikum](http://www.unikum.net). When you have grasped the general concept of Web 2.0; participation, user-centered innovation, sharing, interacting, gaming, standards based communication and open content; you need to move past listing the individual components.
Sure, we need to be able to talk about specifics. We need people like Fredrik, who work on the edge of the technology and the thinking, pushing the boundaries. But we also need to be allowed to make use of what the edge-elite come up with, redefine it to suit our needs and think up new and cool ways to use the technology and thinking for our specific purpose and with our specific, real-world perspective.
Now, when the term “real world” comes up you should start becoming suspicious, coming from a guy who spends most of his day in IRC channels, surfing blogs, wikis, social networking sites and virtual worlds – or taking part in and creating Alternate Reality Games. Sure, I am also a part of an elite. I write applications for the web, where I make use of modern technologies, and I use participatory games as a teaching instrument for [The Story Lab](http://thestorylab.se). I may be overly naive in thinking that the mainstream is catching up.
But when it does, Web 3.0, or WebX, is the natural upgrade path. Web 3.0 is not a collective word used to describe a set of technologies, but the result of those technologies becoming a common good, used by everyone.
May 5th, 2007 @ 02:05
Thought some of you might be interested in this call for proposals / chapters on web 2.0:
CALL FOR CHAPTER PROPOSALS
The Handbook of Research on Language Acquisition Technologies: Web 2.0 Transformation of Learning will provide an up-to-date overview of current developments in Information and Communication Technologies related to the fields of second and foreign language acquisition. The volume will feature chapters (5,000-7,500 words) authored by leading experts in the field of CALL, e-Learning and educational technology, offering an in-depth description of key terms and concepts related to different areas, issues and trends in Information Communication Technologies.
RECOMMENDED TOPICS
Topics include, but are not limited to:
(i). A history of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 technologies
(ii). The case for the originality of Web 2.0 technologies
(iii). The pitfalls of Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom (information overload, Internet security, the dangers of online communities for students)
(iv). Web 2.0 and the potential for educational Institutions
(v). The pedagogical implications of Web 2.0
(vi). Second Life and language education
(vii). E-Learning 2.0 (distance learning, mobile learning, blended learning)
(viii). Web 2.0 and the history of Computer Assisted Language Learning
(ix). The use of blogs in language education
(x). Virtual gaming and Web 2.0
(xi). Podcasting in language education
(xii). Wikis in language education
(xiii). The pedagogical implications of social network environments
(xiv). Social software and learning
(xv). The role of the ICT/CALL coordinator and Web 2.0 technologies
(xvi). E-moderation and Web 2.0
(xvii). Conditions for the successful implementation of Web 2.0 in education
(xviii) Laptop projects (wireless and one-to-one)
(xix). Case studies using Web 2.0 in language learning contexts. Other areas of research on Web 2.0 technologies (YouTube, Second Life, MySpace, iPods, Mobile Learning, Course Management Systems, Social Software, ning.com, Flickr, etc.) and language learning will also be considered.
INVITED SUBMISSIONS
Individuals interested in submitting chapters (5,000-7,500 words) on the above-suggested topics or other related topics in their area of interest should submit via e-mail a 2 page manuscript proposal clearly explaining the mission and concerns of the proposed chapter by June 15, 2007. We strongly encourage other topics that have not been listed in our suggested list, particularly if the topic is related to the research area in which you have expertise. Upon acceptance of your proposal, you will have until November 30, 2007, to prepare the first draft of your chapter of 5,000-7,500 words and 7-10 related terms and their appropriate definitions.
Guidelines for preparing your paper and terms and definitions will be sent to you upon acceptance of your proposal. Please forward your e-mail of interest including your name, affiliation and a list of topics (5-7) on which you are interested in writing a chapter to: Michael Thomas, editor, at no later than June 15, 2007.
You will be notified about the status of your proposed topics by July 1, 2007. This book is scheduled for publishing by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) in 2008.
October 8th, 2007 @ 08:53
[...] historical perspective on TEL. The figure that illustrates "Web 2.0" is the "Web 2.0 technology cloud ". • • [...]
July 3rd, 2008 @ 18:19
I definitely agree with you that Web 2.0 refers to the collection of all new tools, applications, designs, that is the Wikis, blogs, pod-cast and others out there but more so it is used to refer to the patterns of use of all these tools and how they’ve turned the Web into a social user experience. I think it refers more to the enhanced use, value and benefit that is derived from using the tools. Individual, institutions, companies and the government are using the Web 2.0 tools to design useful, relevant, compelling user experience for their users, visitors, customers and employees.