sorry I posted this in the wrong section, it should be in the second reading blog

I must admit that before reading these articles I knew little about Web 2.0. I knew that it was along the lines of MySpace, Flickr, and other “user-defined” sites, but I didn’t really know the definition. These articles did a pretty good job about answering any questions I had about the term.

One article that struck me in particular was “We Are the Web.” My original feeling about Web 2.0 was uneasiness. I must say that “We Are the Web” didn’t do much to dispel that feeling, but instead sort of validated it.

Kevin Kelley’s description of the web as a “the Machine,” and as a promising venue for artificial intelligence, reminded me of something else. It reminded me of huge corporations. Bear with me for a moment as I clarify with an example.

Suppose two friends start up a company. The company does really well and so the two friends generate a pretty good profit for themselves. Eventually the company starts to get really big and someone offers them a good deal to sell out. The two entrepreneurs sell the company, which is now in the hands of who knows. It turns into a large corporation. In order to maximize profits, the corporation decides that they are going to cut back wages for, say, their laborers at the warehouse level. In turn these workers must work very hard for very long hours with very little pay just to get by. Who exactly is profiting from this? The laborers aren’t. Sure, a few investors or stockholders may be getting richer from it, but it seems like something like this would be mere pocket change to one of those big wigs, and at what cost?

So what is the real motivation? Why are all the employees working so hard to better this company? I think that something to consider is that the company itself is a “Monster” in the same sense that the Web is a “Machine.” It is a type of artificial intelligence - running itself, forever trying to profit more and more.

What’s to say that this glorious Web 2.0 won’t turn on us like any other selfish, evolutionary…thing. Kelly talks about it as if AI is an exciting new potential, and I won’t argue that it’s not exciting. However, everything about us has the potential to be exposed. We are being profiled. Security is, for the most part, non-existent.

It all just feels creepy.

brb gotta go check my myspace.

As for Birkerts’ comments on the astonishingly accessible information deluge available on the web, I agree with him completely that information and education is a function of context and that such information should not be a sole source, but a minor contributor to one’s overall knowledge. It’s easy to fall into the traps that web-based knowledge affords – namely that the certainty of the source could be called into question and the potential that this type of research could entirely supplant traditional methods of information gathering which are more reliable, though less accessible, far before this method is warranted. More and more legitimate web sources are available as information sources, and many more institutions, centers of learning, and valid purveyors of knowledge are heading in the digital direction, but many outlets on the internet are still far from reaching this point.

In response to his primary concern, the threat to the individual, I have to say that in many ways I disagree with Birkerts’ assertion that a “hive” mind is a serious threat stemming from Web 2.0. It is true that this new version of the internet connects the masses on a level that has never before been witnessed, but I doubt in its capabilities to annihilate the individual. With each new technological advance comes a tighter interweaving of global humanity – you can see this historically through forms of transportation and media dissemination, each of which allowed the individual to reach out further and further and reduced limitations stemming from boundaries. With each new technology came new fears about the consequences of broadening the potential scope of the individual as well. For scientific purposes, this readily available sharing of information has done wonders, especially for fields in natural history, where websites and amateur enthusiasts have merged in wonderful ways, providing record submissions (subject to verification, of course) and increasingly helpful data from sources and locations which could never be covered by one expert alone. As for Birkerts’ fears for the literary and artistic fields, I fail to see how such very subjective fields could be “colonized” and therefore altered in value. Facts can remain facts, but nothing can touch individual experience, at least if the individual is actually experiencing what literature and art have to offer, not mechanically absorbing what others proffer to them. If the web is such a threat to cultural homogenization, what on earth was television? At least with the web, you have more options as to what you choose to expose yourself to. And if you don’t like it, you can create your own venue for self expression. If anything, I see Web 2.0 as a way to express individuality rather than stifle and homogenize it.

Sara Pratt

As the progression of web 2.0 continues to move us into a more user generated community, a company’s IT department becomes more and more of a necessity as well as an opportunity to explore the many benefits that this version of the web has.

Collaboration, collaboration, and more collaboration is basically the theme of this article; the larger the community of input produces a more defined and user specific product will be developed. For example, the article talks about a website that IT directors focus on called Topcoders explaining that “the site uses eBay-style bidding to put software developers in touch with companies looking for specific application development requirements.” Obviously, the more developers there are means a company will have a better chance at solving there business needs. Proctor and Gamble is another company that is using the web to generate a “larger pool of experts” to increase its core competency, or what it is essentially good at. Not only does this lower their costs but also increases their benefit by giving them a better chance of solving their business need.

Another instance of web 2.0 serving a greater purpose for a business is viral marketing. Businesses are now letting the consumers do the marketing of the products which can be a good thing. In a more user oriented market, the users will ultimately decide what is good or bad using the web as a source such as blog reviews or messaging others about certain products. Once again, costs can be reduced and product improvements can be made. Succeeding in the web 2.0 era for a business means succeeding in developing a product that many users will communicate with while also advancing its use.

The advantages of integrating web 2.0 into a business can be huge, and innovation is definitely a key factor for IT directors if they wish to succeed in this dynamic environment of information.

In "The Threat to Individuality" I must agree with the author to a point that Web 2.0 has made us lose our individuality. There are so many applications on the web that help us find information about whatever we want. For example, wikipedia is a great source of information. The only problem is that we usually tend to believe exactly what it says and accept their definitions and explanations of things as truth. Most of the time we don't go farther to explore the subject that we are researching and use traditional methods of research. The lost art of looking up books at the library has made us accept whatever the author on such a site as Wikipedia writes. This therefore states a challenge for us growing up in the Web 2.0 era. How do we live with Web 2.0 but still maintain our identity. I think the answer lies in the time we spend using Web 2.0 applications and for what reasons we are using them. We need to understand that we shouldn't fully rely on these sources, whether it is an online encyclopedia or a networking site. As for a networking site, we tend to lose our individuality when we are swayed by what is popular to other people. For example, on Facebook and MySpace, you can click on someone's favorite movie and see what other friends you have that like the same movie. Sometimes this can be swaying in your decision to put a certain movie down or something in another category. Web 2.0 seems to love grouping people in similary interests together. Then this brings up another question: Is there something wrong if your interests can't be grouped with others? We need to understand that there is nothing wrong if our individual interests can't be linked to others' interests. There just needs to be a boundary of where it is appropriate to be a collective whole and where it is appropriate to be an individual.

Two things really struck me from reading Kelly’s comments.:

(1) Kelly encountering Amish farmers and their use of the web.
(2) How the Internet functions as a computer similar to the human brain.

Before reading this article, my idea of the Amish lifestyle represented a community of technologically averse people, rooted in history, somewhat avoiding the other cultures in the outside world. This view, I admit, is quite narrow, but I saw it this way and continue to struggle with the image it represents. Kelly’s excerpt opened my eyes a bit. His encounter with Amish farmers discussing their own websites and use of Yahoo!, was quite surprising to say the least, as it would be the furthest thing from my mind when I think of the Amish. However, Kevin’s point is made, the Internet is here, and it is pervasive and has found roots in everyone’s lives. There may be cultures that still exist outside of the Internet, but you can be sure that the information about those cultures is housed within a computer on it.
A line of thought sometimes discussed within my circle of friends relates back to a quote by Sun’s John Gage, that “The network is the computer.” The Internet we have today is working brain, remembering things, processing questions and giving results, growing with every access.

What is more interesting to consider is:

What is this big storehouse of information really thinking or remembering? We put tons of data into the web, some of it is useful, some entertaining, some potentially useless, and many advertisements, but is the information going to continue to be somewhat cohesive or will the massive amounts of information collapse the usefulness of being able to link one bit of information to the other? How are we going to keep it all organized? Where will the massive user interaction of Web 2.0 lead the Internet’s information storage abilities?

--
Brian Giebelhaus
bigghaus@gmail.com
STS 331 - Faigley
Fall 2007

When I first heard of the phrase "Web 2.0", I quickly got annoyed of it. I was thinking: Here is ANOTHER term that identifies with us, young Internet users. After watching the video, although I still don't like it because of the negative connotations that were originally attached to it for me, I have a better understanding of what they actually mean by "Web 2.0".
I have to agree with most of the people in the video, that the Internet now is not a bubble. To say so, is actually quite idiotic. The Internet has become to entwined into our society for another "burst" to happen. Everything is online, and if it isn't online, it frankly doesn't matter.
They bring up the social, collaborative effect of the Internet as well, which is has a huge impact. Websites aren't just about informing now, it's about collaboration, debate and consensus. That is why such big sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Myspace and Wikipedia are so popular. Feedback and communication are a big thing nowadays, and with the Internet and Web 2.0, it's easy. In fact, it is EXPECTED.
The Internet is a being of its own today. It has it's own pop culture and history that only the informed know. You can't escape the fact that it is everywhere, this...”Web 2.0”. Some people can argue that it's bad, but then of course it's about choice. I am way to ingrained with the Internet to ever turn away from it, and no it's not because of places like Facebook. Information, sharing, open, free, communication, access; it's too incredible.

The article “The New Wisdom of the Web” confronts themes that are still relevant a year later. The “Web 2.0 era” that we are currently in allows the freedom of users to create and demand content. I believe this user-generated content was a natural progression from the “web 1.0” era and will undoubtedly face some challenges in the near future. The article seems to praise social computing sites such as Myspace and user-generated content such as Wikipedia. However, while reading this article I couldn’t help but think when internet users will become fed up with the intrusion of the internet into their personal lives. Also, how responsible is allowing user-generated content in terms of the massively popular Wikipedia sites? In the news recently, there have been reports of edits on Wikipedia articles made from government offices such as the FBI. When these websites are open to such freely edited content, when is credibility lost? When will people begin to realize that Wikipedia articles have the potential to be biased by anonymous authors?

I believe we are beginning to see the first instances of backlash from “Social Networking”. Most recently there have been stories in the news of people losing their jobs over their social networking activities on websites such as Facebook and Myspace. Employers are now routinely searching these social networking sites to get more information on applicants, and it seems that employers are looking for more and more reasons not to hire someone based on their activities on social networking sites. It seems that average people aren’t the only victims of this. How many times a week do we here about embarrassing celebrity photographs appearing on the web? I believe at some point in the near future there will be a backlash against these social networking sites because they have become too intrusive in our everyday lives. I along with other friends have deleted our Myspace profiles and severely limited information on our Facebook webpages.

Responding specifically to “The Bubble Bursts” segment:

The idea that the “dot-com” market doesn’t have the profit making capabilities that ‘people’ once thought it to have is both true and misleading, especially in view of Web 2.0 or as Martin’sWiki puts it another “dot-com bubble.” The nature of the internet today is what some people promised and many more hoped for during the late nineties. The cost of web space, extreme bandwidth servers, extreme storage space, and the hardware to use it (personal computers) was a large part of why the initial corporate movement onto the internet was unsuccessful. The hardware and technological developments that have since come along, have made the ‘promised’ “INTERNET” (i.e. effective multimedia application, rich graphics, ubiquitous/quasi-instantaneous information dissemination) a reality. Software too, in the form of JAVA, which works on almost anything, and improved creation and display programs are what has allowed this technological improvement to be exploited.

The idea that Web 2.0 nodes like YouTube, MySpace, and eBay will not survive the long run is at once almost certainly true and utterly irrelevant. The “long run” was not survived by the East India Trading Company, but the company did exist for 200 years. Farcically analogous to the economic entities empowering imperialism, the power (profitability) of the Web 2.0 nodes is not in what they are (current content) but in what they can be. The product that these companies manage and “produce” is a platform, free, informal, and voluntary, for users to exploit to their own ends.

While Martin’sWiki does go on to praise the new web, its worry for the Web 2.0 nodes places in sharp relief a basic misconception of what is happening, at least according to this first time blogger, which is the implementation of our new found ability to service the needs of the endless hordes of web goers with content specifically designed for them. And by what means could this possibly happen… none but the best, from good old Adam Smith – let’em do it themselves. So as long as people want a free place to put video, or pictures, or anything else, and be able to share it or see it from anywhere in the world, as long as people want a free place to find and consume video, or pictures, or anything else, then these sites will do just fine.

I have known about Facebook, Wikipedia, MySpace, and others for years now, but this class is the first time I have heard that called “Web 2.0”. So in reading “Wake up to the daun of Web 2.0”, one of the most important things (for me) that I read is that “Web 2.0 is all about collaboration and user-generated content. (Oh, it makes so much sense now…)

Anyway, after understanding what Web 2.0 actually is, I found it equally interesting that Saran proposes that claim that businesses will soon need to incorporate Web 2.0 in order to be successful.

Tapscott states in the article that “The web has dropped the cost of collaboration so much that people can come together at low-cost.” With an observation such as this, I wonder why a business would be opposed to opening their resources in order to include Web 2.0 and open connections with their consumers.

And, in fact, some companies have already started incorporating Web 2.0, such as Proctor & Gamble, who is planning to cut down on their research and development budget in favor of web access to global experts.

The CEO of Proctor & Gamble said, “Someone outside your organization today knows how to answer your specific question, solve your specific problem or take advantage of your current opportunity beret than you do. You need to find them and find a way to work collaboratively and productively with them.” With this statement, it becomes apparent that Web 2.0 will soon no longer be for adolescents wishing to share the dream they had during naps in between classes on Xanga or another blog site, but will naturally and gradually work its way into the workforce, essentially changing the way businesses (ranging from IT businesses to retail stores) operate.

Another statement that rang pretty true to me was that “products will be found by end-users using a web search engine rather than being pushed by marketing”, predicted by David Schehr. I deem this relatively true, since I am reluctant to even patron a Chinese food restaurant that lacks an updated website. On with businesses and Web 2.0! (and hopefully functioning Chinese restaurant websites…)

After reading the articles about Web 2.0, it is easy to tell that for the most part the authors of these articles are supporters of Web 2.0. There were some comments on the You Tube video that suggested that the Web 2.0 “bubble” would eventually burst, but the arguments against them seemed stronger. I don't believe that this bubble is going to burst. The use of Web 2.0 is continuing to grow along with the technologies it incorporates.

Walking through one of the computer labs on campus it is evident of the popularity of Web 2.0 applications, almost every other computer screen shows Myspace, Facebook, or You Tube. The articles on Web 2.0 also emphasize the concept of collaboration. People can now communicate with other people on the other side of the world. This communication allows for a greater spread of ideas. Company's are also beginning to take advantage of Web 2.0 by communicating with experts around the world and being able to work on the same project.

The most prosperous sites on the Web today are those which allow for user collaboration and the ability to grow without boundaries. Wikipedia is a popular site that allows people to add information to different articles. With many people visiting the site each day not only are they reading the information but they are also able to write it, something which wasn't prominent in Web 1.0.

Google is an other star in Web 2.0, the article “The New Wisdom of the Web” express about how each time someone searches for something in Google, it is like a poll being taken to show the most relevant sites based on your search. It is taking advantage of the concept that two heads are better than one, that fuels the growth of Web 2.0

Reading these articles from people in different fields having the same opinion on Web 2.0 reinforces my own opinion. It seems too me that a collapse of Web 2.0 is highly unlikely, I think it is a good concept which will continue to grow through time as technology also grows.

El-Khoury

Businesses should make the majority of their advertisements for the web instead of other mediums, because the vast population is spending more time surfing the net than reading or even watching television. It is true, the future of the net is collaboration and “businesses that can foster a user community will be winners in the next phase of the web” (Saran). The more interactive a product is the more appealing it seems to be. Also, the internet for many is like a comfort zone. People can search for what they want at any time they please.
The internet benefits businesses because it provides them a cheaper and faster way to advertise. Web 2.0 creates a network of people voicing their opinions and expertise to share with the rest of the world. Web 2.0 has made the internet more user friendly and an instance resource.
Times have changed and social life is different. Before only professionals had access to the internet, where as now anyone that can press a button and read can use the internet. In fact, more and more amateur users utilize the online world. The amount of time spent online has increased from years past.
When I was in middle school and had to do a research project I had to look up things from a print encyclopedia now you ask students and they say Wikipedia. It leaves one to question whether or not we would need libraries in the future or at least what will become of libraries? Online sources are preferred because they are easier to get to and faster to search. Also, online articles are written differently than print – easier to understand and question because the majority of all multimedia information have links to lead you to more insight of a particle subject. For example, the word president might be linked to the official president’s webpage.
The internet, especially Web 2.0 is a wide portal for almost everything. People can watch TV programs, read the newspaper, and learn how to play games and play them, and talk to people from all over the world, along with many other activities. Furthermore, the internet is a gateway for new business models and quick interaction of knowledge and ideas among people. The web is becoming the first source of information in the business world and day to day life. Web 2.0 links people to people (including companies) and provides user-generated content.

Levy’s article on “The Living Web” is a fairly good high-level overview of the concept of Web 2.0 for those among us who don’t quite “get it” yet. But I’m a daily user of the web, and there wasn’t anything in the article that piqued my interest or changed my way of thinking.

The author quickly scratches the surface of Web 2.0 by mentioning buzzwords like RSS and AJAX, open API’s, user-generated content, and social-sharing, but fails to elucidate these concepts. I doubt that the average layman could come away from the article having any idea what the implications are of Flickr opening their data to the masses, for example. I, for one, would be interested in learning about other sites using such features in innovative ways.

Besides the technical aspects of Web 2.0, Levy briefly states that we need not worry about another dot com bubble, but doesn’t really back up this statement. He presents the purchase of Flickr by Yahoo as evidence of the stability of the new dot com economy, but this analysis can hardly be considered in-depth. For every site with a solid business plan behind the user-generated social-sharing smoke and mirrors, there are hundreds seeking (and obtaining) venture capital with little more than bright eyes and a blind trust in the magic of Web 2.0.

However, all criticism of the article’s shallowness aside, I suppose someone has to educate the tragically unhip about the revolution taking place on the internet today, because it has far reaching implications into the way we conduct our offline lives as well.

I found this article to be interesting and well written. However, perhaps because the article is over a year old, or because I am of the Web 2.0 generation - most of the contect seemed obvious to me. As the article stated, "Before MySpace, a lot of people thought that "social computing"—Web sites built to benefit from connections between participants—was a hot area, but Anderson and DeWolfe understood first that people, especially younger people who grew up with a mouse in hand, would get more out of it if they could express themselves by putting all their information where friends could see it."

I know the impact that Web 2.0 has had on our generation and can easily understand why it has been so sucessful. Aside from providing background information on how these interactive companies started up, I didn't feel that this article informed me of any new issues. I enjoyed learning, however, about how small-time people with big ideas (i.e. the founders of Myspace and Flickr) could turn their ideas into sucessful companies, grow their membership because of the popularity of Web 2.0, and then sell them for millions of dollars.

One part of the article I also enjoyed was when it stated, "MySpace in the 2000s is what the malt shop was in the 1950s—if the malt shop could hold 65 million adolescents, many of whom had no qualms about showing pictures of themselves half drunk in their underwear." I feel like this statement perfectly expresses how Web 2.0/social networking sites have made it acceptable to boast to millions of people about things you would never tell your mother.

To respond to a student's post - I agreed with Christopher Reed's arguement about what the future of Web 2.0 holds for our health. Can it be good for our bodies to sit stationary infront of monitors all day? Not to mention the rancorous social effects Web 2.0 could have. Are we doomed to become a society that is only capable of interacting via the internet? Will the medium of the Web replace real life interactions - not only for companies, but for friendships and dating. I hope not.

After reading a little more I found out that many of the CEOs on the video are now bankrupt. Not to mention that fact that I had not heard of any of these companies to begin with. It seems to be somewhat of a conflict of interest to have all these business people talking about how great Web 2.0 is when they seem to all be so heavily reliant on it. It is sort of like if I were to ask George Lucas whether digital filmmaking is the way of the future. Of course he's going to salivate at the mouth and tell me it is since he has so much vested in the notion that it is.
As far as the concept of Web 2.0, it seems to me that there is a lot of emphasis on this idea of increasing communication. In another class I was discussing facebook with another student, and we were debating whether it, along with other social networking sites, really improves communication or diminishes it. I mean ultimately I have a few hundred facebook friends, but how many of those friends am I close with? I have all but lost complete contact with my High School friends because facebook has allowed me to sit back, relax and let it do all the work. Because of this revolution in the effortlessness of electronic communication, we have forsaken strong personal ties, with a multitude of weak digital ties.
Albeit it is easier for anyone to be a publisher, but is that such a good thing? Sure we can all post blogs, write our thoughts and hope that people read them but why should I want to know what the weirdo in my Geology class is thinking? Not to mention that Web 2.0 labors under the impression that all anyone wants to do is sit at their computer and browse the internet all day, that this is all we have ever wanted. I for one want my life to consist of something beyond the Internet. However, this is becoming increasingly difficult. I was without Internet for a week and my life all but fell apart. The more we rely on it, the more it relies on us to generate content. Then we rely on it more and so on.
It is scary to imagine a world where one cannot function without a tool of communication but it looks as if that is where we are headed.

The whole idea of web 2.0 does seem to be some sort of revolution in the way that the internet is accessed and accesible to the general public. The uses of the web have changed from one of reference to one of active participation. To me it seems that the most important aspect of web 2.0 is harnessing collective intelligence. I believe that a collective use of our knowledge is what has led many innovations in the past, particularly in science. Now, we are moving literally at the speed of light. We can share data,knowledge, and ideas in such a way that we can build upon this collective intelligence at record pace and come to new innovative ideas. In this realm of the spread of knowledge also comes a threat to originality, as ideas move faster the original presenter gets lost and the claim to knowledge becomes more difficult.
Overall I do agree with O’Reilly’s idea of what Web 2.0 actually is. However I think that the idea of web 2.0 has undergone a shift to becoming more of a marketing term as companies have begun to see potential profit in all of these venues. Web 2.0 applications continue to be “free” and “open source” but one cannot be naïve in thinking that there is not an underlying reason for these spaces. Advertisement and intrusion into our interests and desires has become a new threat to our privacy. As we post our interests in our myspaces or conduct a search on google we are becoming a statistic in marketing research, our privacy is taken away from us, and we do this all gladly in order to let the world know that we are here. This new aspect of web 2.0 has made it very unattractive to me as I feel that I am constantly being used as a naïve tool that is just impressed by the flashy colors and promising outlook of a website. I plan to be careful with what aspects of web 2.0 I plan to participate in..

The article shows how Web 2.0 has really taken off with sites like Myspace logging in a quarter of a million new users every Monday. It also shows how very small companies are now competing with mega-corporations like Google and Yahoo, companies who were once the big-boys with Web 1.0. Though Fake calls this "the culture of generosity," I somewhat disagree with her about Web 2.0. I feel it's more a "culture of narcissism." For example, I've spent a great deal of time on Facebook. To me, it seems like people here at UT take pictures wherever they go these days, not to save the memory of the event, but so that their friends can see what they did after they update their pictures on facebook. It's very common for me to hear when someone takes a good or funny picture to hear them say, "I'm going to make this my facebook picture." It seems like Facebook and Myspace, aren't necessarily the self-expression outlets that the article claims they are. Instead, I feel they are turning into ways for people to advertise themselves to their friends.

Commercially, Web 2.0 is changing the face of marketing. Now every major band has a Myspace page like the article states. These Myspace pages for the bands get more hits than the band's actual webpage. That's why most news concerning the band will be posted as a blog on their myspace page. Personally, I feel that Web 2.0 most benefits people who are trying to connect to other people.

In my opinion, the best thing that has come from Web 2.0 is RSS feeds. It makes having access to all the information you want extremely simple and organized.

Obviously web 2.0 is here and it has proven itself to be a technology that will not soon leave. Collaboration seems like the new wave rather than a one sided conversation with the internet. To get anywhere in the near future company's will have to start incorporating such a strategy. Although this will call for a dramatic change in budget, in the end the companies that don't wake up to this new age will more than likely fail.

I like the way Alan Lafley, Proctor & Gamble chief executive officer, put it, "Someone outside your organization today knows how to answer your specific question, solve your specific problem or take advantage of your current opportunity better than you do. You need to find them and find a way to work collaboratively and productively with them." No matter how smart you think you are or how much you think you know, somebody is always smarter and knows more and their input could be vital for your business's success.

When a company can sign up a quarter of a million new users in one day, I would think it would be safe to assume that there is probably something very right about what they are doing. Another company who is doing something right is Wikipedia. I dare you to try and search for any particular "thing" to research, and not find Wikipedia at the top of your search list.

In this age we all rely on the internet in one way or another, it was just a matter of time before companies could develop ways to utilize this knowledge in order to benefit for themselves and for their consumers. Web 2.0 is leading to many new possibilities in the future which will make life much easier, and make us, as consumers, much smarter.

--Kyle Benton

I don’t personally own a MySpace or Facebook account, but literally everyone else I know under the age of 35 does. In reading about Web 2.0, or, more explicitly, the user-generated, completely interactive web that the internet has morphed into, it become glaringly obvious how much I, myself, and almost everyone else I know depends on the internet as a source of information, amusement, and communication. When researching for a paper, I only look for articles available online through UT’s website, and haven’t set foot in a library to pick up a paper copy of a book in years. When I need a phone number or to find a specific location, I use Google Maps. Instead of using my phone to keep in touch with family and friends, I send emails or post responses to peoples’ blogs. If I can’t find something in a store, I look for it, and even purchase it, online. Furthermore, I intend to use the skills I am acquiring through this class to construct my own blog in the future, as both a form of self expression and a tool for mass connection to other people.
Newsweek’s article “The New Wisdom of the Web” by Levy and Stone brings up an interesting point that the internet’s astonishingly heavy use, coupled with increased broadband capabilities, makes it easier for web-based companies to rely on user submission to organize, maintain, and direct the future of a website. In reflecting on my own internet usage, it is easy to see how this business plan makes sense and how such companies, when successful, can rake in a whole lot of money. Craigslist is managed by 9 people! I know people who peruse Craigslist every day for items as banal as a free mailbox or for more important searches, such as finding a place to lease for the next year. The beauty part is it only takes 9 people to manage the 7th largest website in the world because all of the content is user-generated, mediated, and managed.
I have never considered myself to be a “member of the internet community” (my token response as to why I am not on MySpace), but, considering my reliance and usage, perhaps I should reconsider my classification.

Sara Pratt

I want to address "the culture of generosity" that Caterina Fake of Flickr addresses in the article "The New Wisdom of the Web". I feel that this is the reason why Web 2.0 is so successful right now. We are in a society now where it is normal to share personal items with friends and family openly. For example, with the use of Web 2.0, users are able to share writing, personal art, photography and other self-created media. More important than this, there are opinions, ideas, and personal thoughts that are shared. I think the interactive aspect of Web 2.0 is very educational and eye-opening. It's amazing to see the growth of these applications in just the past few years. I think that a lot of the time, we take for granted that we can go online and look up something on YouTube that we might have missed on television, or go onto MySpace to listen to a band's new single.

Some of the Web 2.0 applications mentioned in the article that I personally use include MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and Flickr. I actually started using Facebook first out of all of these applications. One of the reasons that I joined was because I wanted to network and interact with friends and also catch up with old friends. I think that it makes getting in touch with people you don't normally run into a lot easier. I have noticed that there is also a downside to Web 2.0. I find it to be quite addicting and time-consuming. Web 2.0, while being a very good way of educating yourself about different things and also sharing your knowledge with others, can be detrimental to traditional approaches to relationships.

The term Web 2.0 is a marketing term, but it also represents a shift in how people are using and interacting with the internet. O’Reilly said that a couple of the core properties many Web 2.0 applications use are the use of users as developers and the harnessing of collective intelligence. I believe that using users as developers is the most important part of the Web 2.0 shift because if web interaction is going to evolve much further it will very likely be in the form of customizable light-weight applications that are very modular in design. Some people complain that as more people become volunteer developers or content authors for web applications that the companies providing those applications are exploiting their users. I think there is nothing wrong with this approach since those companies are not selling their content; they are selling their web application as a platform. Many of the most successful web companies have found ways to generate huge profits while providing their services completely free to their visitors.

Collective intelligence and data management define several Web 2.0 applications like wiki’s and social networking websites. Some people are opposed to these tools because of privacy and accuracy concerns, but as these applications evolve they develop better ways to regulate and secure data in such a way that a person can have full control of how public their data is. I see more and more people building faith in these websites as they further refine data control.

Recently Google’s CEO described Web 2.0 as a shift in the behavior and distribution of web applications in tandem with the development of Ajax-related techniques, and he speculated that what we will one day call Web 3.0 will follow that trend to a far greater degree.

Besides having better business plans, Web 2.0 may not see a bust because there exists a community to keep the various sites alive. To coincide with the beginning of Web 2.0, the open-source movement also took off. Web 2.0 and the open-source movement go hand in hand because they both rely on the wisdom of crowds, playing well with others, and reaching out to openly share information for the common good.

Being born in a Microsoft world like many people, I was baffled over the fact that the most successful products are those that interoperate with other products, even if they were competing. It was almost as if it was the mark of good sportsmanship in a game. The argument that the idea is the users' and not the software manufacturers' quickly sent everyone to arms. Those who comprehended Web 2.0 were those pushing to have open standards that work across platforms, whereas those who did not sought to abuse their positions as a monopoly to lock users in. I quickly learned that those who work well with competitors are most successful while those who do not slide quickly into irrelevance.

It is funny for me to say that I embrace the Web 2.0 era by using open-source programs and being an active participant and still adamantly refuse to upload my photos to a large site such as Facebook or Flickr. I believe that my holding back is justified by the fact that even the most sociable of people need their own retreats. Indeed, I want a place with only my rules and nobody can arbitrarily censor my work. To this end, it is ultimately up to each one of us to control how much of ourselves we actively show to the web. In any case, remember that everybody (including prospective employers and law enforcement) is watching.

In the web 2.0 video, the silicon valley CEOs seemed to have too much of a vested interest to speak objectively on web 2.0, and I think that their enthusiasm turned me off a little from the idea of web 2.0 if only because I don't want to help these guys make any more money. They all had their tightly woven talking points and their serious confidence, but I don't think any of them really know what's going on. Furthermore, they seem so enthralled by technology that I would bet they can't really sympathize with those of us who want to maintain some free-time away from computer screens.

Also, this participant economy appears to be a rather intimidating, imminent, albeit furtive machine of possible intellectual exploitation. Would-be producers are going to get turned into participants who unconsciously benefit the people who had initially invested capital and will now soon be able to sit back and reap profits off the work of others. Although I am certainly not saying that this is anything new, I wonder what the effects will be on how we interpret data and on how power is manipulated in the years to come.

Furthermore, as Douglas Rushkoff explains on Martin's wiki, 'It is not the technology that encourages youth to spend time online - it's the lack of mobility and access to youth space where they can hang out uninterrupted.' How is the internet going to affect our bodies? I can already understand how it encourages a schizophrenic way of thinking (thinking search terms, compulsive youtube perusal, facebook addiction, frenetic downloading) but are we going to become even more alienated from and voyeuristic of our bodies? Because now we don't just have to look like with TV or the earlier internet. Now we can publish and publish. We can make our own little worlds within the internet moguls' big world. And as David Byrne asks in his movie True Stories, who can say it isn't beautiful?