The Internet has played a major role in how we access information and community with the world around us. In its first stages the web was provided for people to access information off of the sites provided to them. The term Web 2.0 is tied to Tim O'Reilly owner of O'Reilly Media because Dale Dougherty, Vice President of O'Reilly Media came up with the term during a meeting held in 2004. Web 1.0 was filled with static websites meaning the provider of the site would only gives the users limited information to access without giving them the ability to comment or share what they know about at particular topic. This is what makes Web 2.0 so GREAT. If you ask me social media would have not evolved into what we know it to be today without Web 2.0 being the platform or foundation used to launch it. I believe that Web 2.0 will continue to evolve and shape the way we communicate via the web. The idea that I can log onto a social media site or even create my own video chat site to talk to loved ones face to face, compared to my first experience with the chat rooms just blows me away. Web 2.0 does more than just live up to the hype it sets the bar at a higher level than before.
Web 2.0 offers many new features that include social networking sites, user created web sites, self-publishing platforms, etc, that were not offered by Web 1.0. What does Web 2.0 offer?
GOOD vs BAD (Web 2.0)
There are others who beg to differ that Web 2.0 is the greatest thing to happen to the web, because now that people are the director and producers they will forget how to learn by listening, and instead of taking to to think critically people will just flood the informational super highway with nonsense and opinion rather than facts and true data. Where's the balance? In traditional forms of the web the gatekeepers decided what information we viewed off their sites and didn't give the users a voice. Web 2.0 opens the door for the users to not only put in their two cents, but the user takes the role of the gatekeepers. Is Web 2.0 bad? Web 2.0 is not so popular in the business world and many business owners believe that Web 2.0 will not provide a stable interface and have referred to Web 2.0 as "building a house on sand". A bad foundation. Some have even gone as far as saying that its a bad idea to allow monkey's to be experts. In other words people are not smart enough or disciplined enough to gather facts and present them concisely. The word talent is also brought up in these articles provided via the links above. Traditional methods have taught us to define talent as what the networks define it as. Old times made it hard to showcase your talent using the media because it was the network people picking the talent they wanted. Web 2.0 now gives the user the right to decided what is talent and who they watch. YouTube is a big player in all of this. People do not have to watch what the networks choose to broadcast, now they can choose what he/she views and with a platform available to them such as YouTube they themselves can now broadcast their own videos or short movies. All thanks to Web 2.0.
It’s safe to say that social media would not be where it is today if Web 2.0 hadn’t served as its platform. Web 2.0 has certainly come a long way since Web 1.0 was the talk of the town. The author has a very good understanding of the concept of Web 2.0. It was helpful as the reader to have access to the link of what Web 2.0 contains. It’s definitely true and a concern that people can forget how to “learn by listening” since they are now the directors and producers. Taking the time to think critically about something is crucial to having successful communication. A good point is made by saying that “people will just flood the informational super highway with nonsense and opinion rather than facts and true data.” This is most definitely a concern of the Web 2.0 world. This blog post does convey the topic, but I felt a bit of confusion when trying to understand the second part, titled “Good vs. Bad.” Overall this post was well written.
ReplyDelete