From what I've gathered there are many different perspectives into what Web 2.0 is. ‘Reader 1’ summed it up clearly for me; Web 2.0 provides interaction between the creator and the reader. It allows people to express their likes and dislikes as well as their opinions into what they have read. Without this participation Web 2.0 would simply not work. It is the relationship between creator and reader that makes Web 2.0 different and allows it to evolve, for its users to share and develop ideas. After reading through the reader I was amazed at how much I use Web 2.0 in my personal life. I almost feel a little selfish after coming to this conclusion that I never share my view or opinions, whether this is because I feel my views didn't hold any merit or that I'm just too busy or lazy to post. I realise now that by participating and sharing views we are creating a better more beneficial community.
'If an essential part of Web 2.0 is harnessing collective intelligence, turning the web into a kind of global brain.'
O’Reilly, T. (2006) ‘What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns And Business Models For The Next Generation Of Software.
The creation of Web 2.0 has helped many companies to grow, and the ones that have taken advantage of what web 2.0 has to offer have been very successful. Harnessing collective intelligence is one idea that has allowed companies like EBay and Amazon to grow in popularity. Web 2.0 platforms are designed to encourage social interaction the successful companies use this to produce better search results and focus the product to the buyer. Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited internet encyclopedia by nature it is a unique form of collective intelligences as anyone can edit and add their knowledge and expertise to articles. In theory the more people contribute the better the site will become. However its greatest asset is also its biggest flaw, allowing open editing leaves space for inaccuracies with regards to unverified or inconsistent information. Any information found on Wikipedia would need to be backed up from a reliable source, this aside on 9th February 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia is ranked fifth globally among all websites.
‘Web 2.0 allowed communities to develop beyond their ‘existing professional networks’ and offer a social space for people, strangers and almost strangers with diverse backgrounds to come together as equals, as generators of ideas, to deliberate and act collectively’
(Feenberg & Bakardjieva 2004, p. 38).
Web 2.0 has also opened up opportunities for individuals to promote themselves or their talents. Singers such as Soulja Boy and Justin Bieber have managed to secure record deals after posting videos on You Tube and building up a pre-existing fan base. This has helped me to realise the power that Web 2.0 has and how it can help aid in a person’s professional development. I have recently come across a Facebook group for Dancers and Dance Teachers where people were not only posting questions and receiving advice but posting job opportunities. This was a new concept to me as until then I had only thought of Facebook as a personal social media; I’m embarrassed to say this only illuminates my previous naivety of the Web 2.0 world. However, this does highlight a potential disadvantage for me. What we share as our professional or personal selves might not always amalgamate; we happily post or comment our opinions unaware that this might deter potential employers. There are also many incidents where people have lost jobs due to expressing unprofessional views on their personal site of choice. In a world where we share our every thought and event, should we be more careful about how we may be perceived by others, mainly employers or potential employers.
"Google and Facebook would have you believe that you are a mirror, that there's one reflection that you have; one idea of self ... What you see in that mirror is what everybody else sees. But in face, we're more like diamonds: you can look at people from any angle and see something totally different."
Chris Poole lashing out at Google's and Facebook's approach to identity.
‘Reader 1’ refers to Hamilton’s theory, (2000) notes that participation is a function, in part, of the reduction of barriers to access (such as time, skill and financial commitment) and that an increase in participation can contribute to the successful building of relationships and the democratisation of media (Hamilton 2000, p. 371).
Web 2.0 breaks through these barriers and with the introduction of smart phones and tables it is even easier to participate. How many people have Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other web 2.0 sites on their phone? We are able to access these sites wherever we have internet access, the train on the way to work, at work during our breaks or in waiting rooms. Making it simpler and easier to access web 2.0 encourages further sharing and interaction. So it is thanks to Web 2.0 that we have a wealth of knowledge at our fingertips, which past generations did not. Is it now our responsibility to further contribute to Web 2.0 so that future generations will have access to our knowledge and insight?
'If an essential part of Web 2.0 is harnessing collective intelligence, turning the web into a kind of global brain.'
O’Reilly, T. (2006) ‘What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns And Business Models For The Next Generation Of Software.
The creation of Web 2.0 has helped many companies to grow, and the ones that have taken advantage of what web 2.0 has to offer have been very successful. Harnessing collective intelligence is one idea that has allowed companies like EBay and Amazon to grow in popularity. Web 2.0 platforms are designed to encourage social interaction the successful companies use this to produce better search results and focus the product to the buyer. Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited internet encyclopedia by nature it is a unique form of collective intelligences as anyone can edit and add their knowledge and expertise to articles. In theory the more people contribute the better the site will become. However its greatest asset is also its biggest flaw, allowing open editing leaves space for inaccuracies with regards to unverified or inconsistent information. Any information found on Wikipedia would need to be backed up from a reliable source, this aside on 9th February 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia is ranked fifth globally among all websites.
‘Web 2.0 allowed communities to develop beyond their ‘existing professional networks’ and offer a social space for people, strangers and almost strangers with diverse backgrounds to come together as equals, as generators of ideas, to deliberate and act collectively’
(Feenberg & Bakardjieva 2004, p. 38).
Web 2.0 has also opened up opportunities for individuals to promote themselves or their talents. Singers such as Soulja Boy and Justin Bieber have managed to secure record deals after posting videos on You Tube and building up a pre-existing fan base. This has helped me to realise the power that Web 2.0 has and how it can help aid in a person’s professional development. I have recently come across a Facebook group for Dancers and Dance Teachers where people were not only posting questions and receiving advice but posting job opportunities. This was a new concept to me as until then I had only thought of Facebook as a personal social media; I’m embarrassed to say this only illuminates my previous naivety of the Web 2.0 world. However, this does highlight a potential disadvantage for me. What we share as our professional or personal selves might not always amalgamate; we happily post or comment our opinions unaware that this might deter potential employers. There are also many incidents where people have lost jobs due to expressing unprofessional views on their personal site of choice. In a world where we share our every thought and event, should we be more careful about how we may be perceived by others, mainly employers or potential employers.
"Google and Facebook would have you believe that you are a mirror, that there's one reflection that you have; one idea of self ... What you see in that mirror is what everybody else sees. But in face, we're more like diamonds: you can look at people from any angle and see something totally different."
Chris Poole lashing out at Google's and Facebook's approach to identity.
‘Reader 1’ refers to Hamilton’s theory, (2000) notes that participation is a function, in part, of the reduction of barriers to access (such as time, skill and financial commitment) and that an increase in participation can contribute to the successful building of relationships and the democratisation of media (Hamilton 2000, p. 371).
Web 2.0 breaks through these barriers and with the introduction of smart phones and tables it is even easier to participate. How many people have Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other web 2.0 sites on their phone? We are able to access these sites wherever we have internet access, the train on the way to work, at work during our breaks or in waiting rooms. Making it simpler and easier to access web 2.0 encourages further sharing and interaction. So it is thanks to Web 2.0 that we have a wealth of knowledge at our fingertips, which past generations did not. Is it now our responsibility to further contribute to Web 2.0 so that future generations will have access to our knowledge and insight?
