After reading Mary Madden and Susannah Fox's article, "Riding the Waves of 'Web 2.0," I continued to feel confused as to what Web 2.0 really means? I get the idea that Web 2.0 is more user-based in its applications; however, I found some of the examples of Web 2.0 a bit ambiguous.
Social networking websites such as Facebook and Myspace seem to be named as prime examples of Web 2.0. While it is true that both social networking websites offer applications for creating autonomous profiles, it is also clear to me that users still cannot control everything on the website (Myspace appears to have these attributes more than Facebook). For instance, Madden and Fox discuss Google and its limitations for Web 2.0 capabilities. The authors write, "Google, which demonstrates many Web 2.0 sensibilities, doesn't exactly five users governing power over their own data--one couldn't, for instance, erase search queries from Google's servers." My question is this: are any web applications available that allow individuals to erase information from the site's server? If not, are any websites truly Web 2.0 by definition? Or, am I not understanding what the authors are implying by this statement?
Perplexed by my own questions and confusion regarding Web 2.0, I attempted to look up the term to see if I could find a clearer definition. Wikipedia, the supposed quintessential Web 2.0 application gave me this ambiguous definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0, and dictionary.com, for all it's supposed Web 2.0 applications that could be used via Facebook (or so they say), couldn't come up with one single definition. Instead, it took me to the search engine ask.com where I worked my way through the mess of advertisements and links to the term Web 2.0.
Throughout my search, I was able to stumble upon the website of co-creator of the term Web 2.0, Tim O'Reilly. In a particular article, O'Reilly talks about the misuse of the term as well as the misconception of what Web 2.0 is really all about. O'Reilly tries to define Web 2.0 and admits that even he and co-creator Dale Dougherty have been confused by the term at times. Some key concepts that O'Reilly says define a Web 2.0 application are a rich user experience, the ability to harness collective intelligence, and a high level of participation. To see the entire article, click here:
The article goes on to give examples of Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0, and I was surprised to see Google as an example of Web 2.0, especially when Madden and Fox denounce Google as a Web 2.0 application.
Despite conflicting opinions regarding Google, I did get a better understanding of what Web 2.0 is....I think?
1 comment:
Well, there may not be one precise definition of Web 2.0, since it's interpreted different ways (some have suggested a Web 3.0 even). One way to think of it, however, is as a shift from the Web being a presentational vehicle (such as early Web sites) to the Web becoming a place of participation/interaction, where its users create/control/manipulate information and interactions, rather than being passive recipients of information.
Post a Comment