This article is written by Tim O’Reilly, one of the most foremost experts about the web. The whole goal is to differentiate Web 2.0 from Web 1.0. They have a cool little list that I will display below, which shows what turned into what when Web 2.0 took over. It’s kind of cool for me to see what took what’s place.
|Web 1.0||Web 2.0|
|evite||–>||upcoming.org and EVDB|
|domain name speculation||–>||search engine optimization|
|page views||–>||cost per click|
|screen scraping||–>||web services|
|content management systems||–>||wikis|
|directories (taxonomy)||–>||tagging (“folksonomy”)|
He then goes on to explain a lot of these more. I liked the fact that he mentioned Google as one of the most influential Web 2.0 site/company/whatever. I think of Google as a leader of web technology and I was glad that someone shared my viewpoint. He talks about rich user experiences, or user-centered design if we were in my CGT 512 class, which plays a vital role in Web 2.0.
O’Reilly summaries the whole article with the following points (taken directly from this article)
This paper, as the title says, highlights the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. It says the key attributes associated with attributes associated with Web 2.0 include the growth of social networks, bi–directional communication, various ‘glue’ technologies, and significant diversity in content types (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). I would have to agree with that. The “old” web had almost none of these, as well as those annoying as shit animated GIFs. Like really who thought that would be a good idea? The only “old” social network I can think of is Friendster which isn’t even that old.
In the middle of this paper they state that “Web 2.0 [is] viewed as Publish/Subscribe model” and I would have to agree. Take for example all the social media sites. I publish something, then someone who is my friend (i.e. subscribed to me) will get the content I posted. The difference between this and Web 1.0 is Web 1.0 is usually just static content. There is no way to interact, and usually they look awful (just a side note).
Web 2.0 is viewed as a platform, which helps to support other online applications. The paper mentions the opening of various API’s (Application Programming Interface) which allow users to add applications to various account on social media sites, as well as just the general web. So basically, everything is built off of Web 2.0 using API’s or other methods, thus Web 2.0 is the platform. Weird how that works huh?
This article provides a good background about all social media sites, from the history to the rise and fall of certain sites to now. I liked the opening paragraphs, even if I just skimmed them because they seemed to be repeating what I already know. Someone who has very limited knowledge of social media would find this extremely helpful.
The section that I found the most interesting was about privacy on social networks. Privacy is a huge issue and for the most part still a work in progress. One of the sites that has dealt with privacy really well, I think, is Google . It’s different from Facebook, which has it’s own issues. But Google so far has not had any complaints about privacy that I know of. They say that people, most noteably teens, are the ones that get messed up in the privacy game because they have no clue how what they do will impact the Internet, or the impression the Internet has on them (public nature of the Internet). Lastly, how do social networks stack up in courts. The article asks the question, “do police officers have the right to access content posted to Facebook without a warrant?” What do you think?
When I first started to read this article I really didn’t know what to expect, except it being boring, uneventful, what have you, the list goes on and on. But then I actually got into it and it was good for the most part.
The introduction shows how something can go from concept to implementation in the matter of a few hours. That is awesome. The place I currently work is like this and I like it a lot. My ideas are put directly into our products in the matter of days, and that is pretty cool if you ask me.
I like the way this article talks about corporate structure and what channels of communication/collaboration they use. Some use wikis, blogs, and instant messaging software. But there is a downside. Some companies use email too much, and their employees feel burdened. This may decrease productivity. I know that I for sure would spend more time looking at my emails than working if I ever got that many emails at a time. Even though companies use these, there is another fundamental problem. Knowledge isn’t being captured effectively from the people who actually hold the knowledge. This leads to the loss of tacit knowledge when those people leave a company. How would you like it if a chef left the restaurant and was the only one who knew how to make the dishes? Not ideal right?
Discussing the Enterprise 2.0 Ground Rules was not what I thought. I thought it would be something along the lines of which products to use, or what works best. Much to my surprise the two ground rules included making sure their offerings [to employees] were easy to use, and to not impose on users any preconceived notions about how work should proceed or how output should be categorized or structured. So they are basically making it easier for the end user, in this case the employees, as well as providing no little to no structure. I think providing little to no structure is a great idea. Everyone is different and if they can do something the way they like to do it, then they are more likely to use it. This means that the information that is not being collected currently is more likely to be collected in the future.