Web 2.0 dealing with the online environment as a platform. This is a quite common sentence that is found when looking for information on the definition of web2.0.
But what does that actually mean?
I find that when looking for a real definition of Web2.0 it may be that the field of Web2.0 has not been fully researched academically, another fuzzy or cloudy area.
As for Web2.0 as a platform i find that when comparing the old Web1.0 to Web2.0, Web1.0 is flat (information is given and published by the 'top guns' the journalists, tv presenters etc, allowing for very little if any user contribution). Web 2.0 is able to be used as a building block of opinion. Users can create, collaborate, abuse, use remix and remash most content (copywrite issues can be a problem) on website content (photos, text, clips etc) with photoshop or any kind of editing program. Content origonally produced for one reason may be remixed and used for a completley different reason than origonally intended.
Web 2.0 puts the power at the hands of the user. It allows to be active rather than passive audiences. Users are organising and categorising, sharing and learning.
There is a shift in economic value of the web, a shift from the individual dictator to a wide community web of participants in information collaboration. Anyone can be a contributor, it places everybody at the same level users may be amateur or professional.
Content is user lead.
Bottom up rather than top down.
Where gradual inprovement in content quality is up to the masses, over time.
Its up to the user
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This post highlights the ability of users to create and mash content in web 2.0 compared the one way communication of web 1.0.
A great point that amateurs and professionals alike have equal opportunities to be users and producers to share and collaborate content.
In web 2.0, the most limitations come the users themselves.
Gen's original post clearly discusses some of the major and clearly visible differences between Web 1.0 and 2.0. I just thought it was important to remember that the terms 1.0 and 2.0, as well as being uncertain as you discussed, have been widely criticised for their literal meaning linking to a radical new development in the technical side of the web, rather than the more gradual, continuing movements and shifts.
Produsers utilise Web 2.0 for its interactivity. They have opinions to voice, knowledge to share and a strong online presence.
Web 1.0 had a stronger focus on information distribution. Websites were created simply to display information from producer to user, with little or no interaction between the two. Online interaction was limited to email which took users away from the site and had minimal continuity or benefits for relationship building. Web 2.0 has adopted synergy and developed methods that mimic face-to-face communication as much as possible with the obvious temporal and geographic constraints of the users.
I agree with your post in that these areas are very ‘cloudy’ and I feel need further verification, and perhaps a new set of terminology! I think the confusion could really set in when we’re comparing Web 45.0 and Web 46.0!
Post a Comment