Mehhhh 2.0. It's greatest weakness is its popularity, and, well, the fact that is DOES actually do some things that 1.0 didn't. Unfortunately, the hype allows some misunderstandings to perpetuate themselves. John told me that web 2.0 lets me interact with things. Interacting with things is awesome. So I tried web 2.0 and it was, in fact, awesome. Therefore, John was right. Web 2.0 must be awesome because it lets me interact with things. Nevermind that John missed the point. He made it first, and now we're stuck with it. See more on theory: http://redheadedstepchild.org/destruct/?page=001753 or in action: http://digitalhistoryhacks.blogspot.com/2007/01/exploratory-bibliography.htm... -Alexis On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Sam Ladner wrote: ::Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:14:51 -0500 ::From: Sam Ladner <samladner@gmail.com> ::Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::Cc: AoIR mailing list <air-l-aoir.org@listserv.aoir.org> ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] Web 2.0 - "the machine is us?" :: ::Hello all, :: ::Funny -- this exact same conversation was happening on the IDC list as well. ::People were amazed and impressed, others were critical, some found redeeming ::qualities, and in the end, everyone seemed to agree that it was a nice ::installation but could not serve as a substitute for scholarly work. :: ::The irony I noticed on that list -- and on this one -- is that we all use ::the listserv (decidedly NON-Web 2.0 technology) to engage in a fundamentally ::social activity of deciding scientific (read: scholarly) norms. If anything, ::then, this video has produced a Web 2.0 type of reaction, which isn't really ::Web 2.0 at all, but more Kuhnian. :: ::Does this video tell us anything about the structure of scientific ::revolutions? No. ::Does this video invite us to participate and debate? No. ::Does this video detail the nuance behind social computing in general? No. :: ::Great news! Guess we all still have day jobs. :: ::On 2/13/07, David Brake <d.r.brake@lse.ac.uk> wrote: ::> ::> Wesch does an excellent job in a brief presentation of providing a ::> tentative definition of 'Web 2.0' and hinting at its possible ::> impacts. He does not attempt to provide a clear explanation of the ::> ways in which Web 2.0 is distinctly different from 'social software' ::> that has been around on the Internet since the beginning (Usenet, ::> mailing lists, collaboratively authored FAQs etc) nor does he discuss ::> the implications of the fact that Web 2.0 users are still a minority ::> of users and active Web 2.0 contribution is largely the work of a ::> still smaller minority (something I recently posted about in more ::> detail on the Media@LSE weblog here): ::> ::> http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/2007/02/overstating-the- ::> significance-of-web-20/ ::> ::> But of course a 5 minute video is not a paper so that would be too ::> much to expect - the video would make an excellent starting point for ::> discussion of these issues in a classroom. ::> ::> --- ::> David Brake, Doctoral Student in Media and Communications, London ::> School of Economics & Political Science ::> <http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/study/ ::> mPhilPhDMediaAndCommunications.htm> ::> Also see http://davidbrake.org/ (home page), http://blog.org/ ::> (personal weblog) and http://get.to/lseblog (academic groupblog) ::> Author of Dealing With E-Mail - <http://davidbrake.org/ ::> dealingwithemail/> ::> callto://DavidBrake (Skype.com's Instant Messenger and net phone) ::> ::> _______________________________________________ ::> The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list ::> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org ::> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: ::> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org ::> ::> Join the Association of Internet Researchers: ::> http://www.aoir.org/ ::> ::_______________________________________________ ::The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list ::is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org ::Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org :: ::Join the Association of Internet Researchers: ::http://www.aoir.org/ ::

Mehhhh 2.0. It's greatest weakness is its popularity, and, well, the fact that is DOES actually do some things that 1.0 didn't.

Like what? [And can you define what gets inclusion in web 1.0?] My understanding is that the only technological innovation involved is the occasional use of the XMLHttpRequest object, which dates back to 2000 or so. (Wikipedia says the Mozilla implementation was 2002, the IE one in 2000.) Nobody will give a solid example of what "Web 2.0" is - methinks because it is an invented term still seeking a definition. I hope O'Reilly is making plenty of cash from the coinage of the term. I can't find *one solitary thing* about Web 2.0 that isn't easily implementable using "plain old web technologies" -- what, then, describes the ascribed monumental change? Saying that 'web 2.0' is "all about the social" or something similar is not enough, it seems... nor is it enough to talk about the bare technologies being used. Neither of these two things have fundamentally changed, IMHO.... Maybe Web 2.0 is just supposed to describe some new flavor of creativeness among application authors? That's about all I can figure.... --e

At 22:29 Uhr +0000 13.2.2007, Alexis Turner wrote:

Did you perchance read the link I supplied before, in which I outlined what I thought the difference between 1.0 and 2.0 was? Mind you, it was a short thought piece, but if it really sucked so badly that you can't tell what I think the difference is and/or if you disagree with my assessment, let me know and I'll consider revising it.

Full source: http://redheadedstepchild.org/destruct/?page=001753 Cliff's notes: creative search and navigation capability -Alexis

You there write: "The incredible thing is that it offers a radically new approach to managing and finding information. Web 2.0 offers both information and tools, if you will, where Web 1.0 offered only information. Methods like XML, RSS, AJAX, and tagging, sites like del.icio.us or netvibes - these offer methods more powerful than search engines and hyperlinks for understanding, and finding, how information is connected. They improve the ambient findability of relevant material, communities, peers, and ideas." So, wouldn't this mean that "Web 2.0" started with Google search? Or ... wait... it started with Yahoo catalogues. No ... wait ... it started with Netscape inventing Livescript (now Javascript). No, hey, it must have started with the implementation of Web *forms*. Uh oh, and soon we are in TBL's office in Geneva looking at the first Web browser... --u

Ok, so we agree it is NOT a new paradigm. Meaning that the 1.0 to 2.0 step naming suggestion is a Microsoft like overblown pseudo-signification marketing attempt. Sure, "Web 1.7" wouldn't catch on as much. We also agree that there is progress, and that some of the progress is just necessary follow-up from sheer growth. We simply didn't need what is seen as helpful now. Do we agree that the basis for HTML already was the idea of separating form and content? And do we agree that early on the Web wasn't entirely built in static Web pages (remember Frontier? --> http://dave.editthispage.com/historyOfFrontier )? And do we agree that the Web has many more functions than just searching? Personally, I see one stream of development, with great ideas rocking the waters here and there and then. Looking forward to what comes next! --u At 23:17 Uhr +0000 13.2.2007, Alexis Turner wrote:

No, I believe the original way of finding information on the web involved 1) search engines and 2) static hyperlinks...generally built on static pages (ie - they change rarely, and are updated by people who can write HTML).

But I believe new methods allow more sophisticated ways to search for information. A site like del.icio.us, for instance, that employs tagging by discrete entities (individual, identifiable humans) allows one more fine-grained control of the search process. Instead of searching Altavista's picture of the entire web, you can instead narrow down on 10 individuals whom you have found to be consistently interesting and follow their linking patterns over a long period of time. In doing so, you become exposed to new terms, and friends of theirs, which allow you to create new searches. Likewise, an increased emphasis on standards (XML, separation of form from content, etc), means that a myriad of such sites can be more easily accessed by a *single* home-grown software solution, thus automating a large-scale search/parse. 10 years ago, there were a thousandth of the pages. I could do it by hand. Now?....

In other words, there are simply more options, and 2.0 provides us with tools that can better respond to the size the web has become. We have become more sophisticated in our understanding of how to use the web, and, in turn, we have begun developing methods that can make use of that. The realization that form and content must be separate was something we had to learn from getting wrong at first. That is the knowledge that comes from experience, and why 1.0 could not have anticipated some of what we see today.

Is this completely new? Of course not - it is a refinement to how a creative searcher would have done things 8 years ago, but it makes it obvious to a larger number of people, among other things, and it makes it easier, which I don't think can be overstated. It is a signal that the web is maturing - we are becoming more aware of how to navigate it successfully (and unsuccessfully). As the "article" (and I do use that term loosely) said - I don't think it is a new paradigm, I think it is a more nuanced and evolved way of approaching the idea of searching. This is where I think the idea of "Web 2.0" is vaguely hoax-like, and *certainly* overblown - it is NOT a new paradigm. It is NOT a platform. But none of those criticisms should imply that it is entirely useless. It is a recognition of a refinement in our understanding, and that in and of itself is pretty welcome in my mind. -Alexis

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Ulf-Dietrich Reips wrote:

::You there write: "The incredible thing is that it offers a radically new ::approach to managing and finding information. Web 2.0 offers both information ::and tools, if you will, where Web 1.0 offered only information. Methods like ::XML, RSS, AJAX, and tagging, sites like del.icio.us or netvibes - these offer ::methods more powerful than search engines and hyperlinks for understanding, ::and finding, how information is connected. They improve the ambient ::findability of relevant material, communities, peers, and ideas." ::So, wouldn't this mean that "Web 2.0" started with Google search? Or ... ::wait... it started with Yahoo catalogues. No ... wait ... it started with ::Netscape inventing Livescript (now Javascript). No, hey, it must have started ::with the implementation of Web *forms*. Uh oh, and soon we are in TBL's office ::in Geneva looking at the first Web browser... ::--u ::

Going on Kuhn's definition of a paradigm shift, I'll reiterate that I don't think this falls under that category. If you buy his definition, it requires an overthrow of older methods almost altogether. In the process, the old way of doing things is often completely ignored (Chang's 'Inventing Temperature' has a rather good example of this, involving the complete loss to history of an experiment in which physicists *radiated cold* - it doesn't meet what we believe about temperature today, so we have conveniently written it away). In the case of 1.0/2.0, as you point out, the methods we are using now already existed, but in a more "primitive form." To me, those are the keywords that suggest a paradigm shift has not occurred at all. Normal science concerns itself with finessing and improving existing forms, making them less primitive in the process. -Alexis On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Jim Porter wrote: ::Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:03:25 -0500 ::From: Jim Porter <porterj8@msu.edu> ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org, subbies@redheadedstepchild.org ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] Web 2.0 - "the machine is us?" :: ::I don't think O'Reilly is wrong, or guilty of marketing hype. Paradigm ::shifts are never all that clear in the midst of them. They only become clear ::as dramatic episodic shifts later. In the midst they definitely work more ::like a "stream of development." It's the same thing, just from two different ::historical perspectives. :: ::Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 -- and, now, Web 3.0 -- are oversimplified stage ::markers, maybe yes. But that that doesn't mean they don't signify important ::stages of development in social networking. To me "social networking" has ::been around since the advent of email discussion lists and hypertextual ::linkages -- almost as long as the WWW itself (1993-1994) -- just in a more ::primitive form. The numerical markers harken back to an older paradigm ::(software updates), and that is useful from a marketing and public commons ::standpoint. It just isn't very useful from a research or development ::standpoint. On the conceptual level "social networking" is the really ::interesting phenomenon, and it is ongoing. :: ::Jim Porter :: :: :: ::> Ok, so we agree it is NOT a new paradigm. Meaning that the 1.0 to 2.0 ::> step naming suggestion is a Microsoft like overblown ::> pseudo-signification marketing attempt. Sure, "Web 1.7" wouldn't ::> catch on as much. We also agree that there is progress, and that some ::> of the progress is just necessary follow-up from sheer growth. We ::> simply didn't need what is seen as helpful now. ::> Do we agree that the basis for HTML already was the idea of ::> separating form and content? And do we agree that early on the Web ::> wasn't entirely built in static Web pages (remember Frontier? --> ::> http://dave.editthispage.com/historyOfFrontier )? And do we agree ::> that the Web has many more functions than just searching? ::> Personally, I see one stream of development, with great ideas rocking ::> the waters here and there and then. Looking forward to what comes ::> next! ::> --u ::> ::> At 23:17 Uhr +0000 13.2.2007, Alexis Turner wrote: ::>> No, I believe the original way of finding information on the web involved 1) ::>> search engines and 2) static hyperlinks...generally built on static ::>> pages (ie - ::>> they change rarely, and are updated by people who can write HTML). ::>> ::>> But I believe new methods allow more sophisticated ways to search for ::>> information. A site like del.icio.us, for instance, that employs ::>> tagging by discrete entities ::>> (individual, identifiable humans) allows one more fine-grained control of the ::>> search process. Instead of searching Altavista's picture of the entire web, ::>> you can instead narrow down on 10 individuals whom you have found to be ::>> consistently interesting and follow their linking patterns over a long period ::>> of time. In doing so, you become exposed to new terms, and friends of ::>> theirs, ::>> which allow you to create new searches. Likewise, an increased emphasis on ::>> standards (XML, separation of form from content, etc), means that a myriad of ::>> such sites can be more easily accessed by a *single* home-grown software ::>> solution, thus automating a large-scale search/parse. 10 years ago, ::>> there were ::>> a thousandth of the pages. I could do it by hand. Now?.... ::>> ::>> In other words, there are simply more options, and 2.0 provides us with tools ::>> that can better respond to the size the web has become. We have become more ::>> sophisticated in our understanding of how to use the web, and, in ::>> turn, we have ::>> begun developing methods that can make use of that. The realization that ::>> form ::>> and content must be separate was something we had to learn from getting wrong ::>> at first. That is the knowledge that comes from experience, and why ::>> 1.0 could not ::>> have anticipated some of what we see today. ::>> ::>> Is this completely new? Of course not - it is a refinement to how a creative ::>> searcher would have done things 8 years ago, but it makes it obvious to a ::>> larger number of people, among other things, and it makes it easier, which I ::>> don't think can be overstated. It is a signal that the web ::>> is maturing - we are becoming more aware of how to navigate it ::>> successfully (and ::>> unsuccessfully). As the "article" (and I do use that term loosely) said - I ::>> don't think it is a new paradigm, I think it is a more nuanced and evolved ::>> way ::>> of approaching the idea of searching. This is where I think the idea of "Web ::>> 2.0" is vaguely hoax-like, and *certainly* overblown - it is NOT a new ::>> paradigm. It is NOT a platform. But none of those criticisms should imply ::>> that it is entirely useless. It is a recognition of a refinement in our ::>> understanding, and that in and of itself is pretty welcome in my mind. ::>> -Alexis ::>> ::>> ::>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Ulf-Dietrich Reips wrote: ::>> ::>> ::You there write: "The incredible thing is that it offers a radically new ::>> ::approach to managing and finding information. Web 2.0 offers both ::>> information ::>> ::and tools, if you will, where Web 1.0 offered only information. Methods ::>> like ::>> ::XML, RSS, AJAX, and tagging, sites like del.icio.us or netvibes - ::>> these offer ::>> ::methods more powerful than search engines and hyperlinks for understanding, ::>> ::and finding, how information is connected. They improve the ambient ::>> ::findability of relevant material, communities, peers, and ideas." ::>> ::So, wouldn't this mean that "Web 2.0" started with Google search? Or ... ::>> ::wait... it started with Yahoo catalogues. No ... wait ... it started with ::>> ::Netscape inventing Livescript (now Javascript). No, hey, it must ::>> have started ::>> ::with the implementation of Web *forms*. Uh oh, and soon we are in ::>> TBL's office ::>> ::in Geneva looking at the first Web browser... ::>> ::--u ::>> :: ::> ::> _______________________________________________ ::> The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list ::> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org ::> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: ::> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org ::> ::> Join the Association of Internet Researchers: ::> http://www.aoir.org/ ::> :: :: ::------------------------------- ::James E. Porter ::Co-Director, WIDE Research Center ::Writing in Digital Environments ::Olds Hall 7 ::Michigan State University ::East Lansing, MI 48824 ::porterj8@msu.edu ::office: 517.353.7258 ::fax: 517.353.9162 ::http://wide.msu.edu/ ::----------------------------------------- :: :: :: :: ::

--- "Denise N. Rall" <denrall@yahoo.com> wrote:

Uh, this will sound naive, but is Web 2.0 actually using larger system implentations Internet2 (IPv6) or is it traveling on the same IPv4 platform as the WWW today?

Well, we're all on today's net, now, and today's (IPv4) addressing etc. 'Course all you people on taxpayer subsidised hardware, software, firmware, wetware ...... may well be streaking light years ahead with Web whatever .0, etc :-) and I2 Dominic Pinto BA MIEEE MCMI MRi FRSA http://www.ecademy.com/user/dominicpinto e-m: dominic.pinto@ieee.org M: +44 780 302-8268 Ph: +44 207 379-8341 In the U.S. M/Cell: +1 215 667-3001

http://www.iiszone.ziffdavis.com/article/Web+20+Off+the+PC/197323_1.aspx Web 2.0 Off the PC DATE: 22-DEC-2006 By IIS Zone Features Staff Web 2.0 can be a slippery subject. Not everyone agrees on exactly what it means, leaving the term open to gratuitous marketing use. But it does mean something, and that something is related to the richness of Web applications that make data more accessible and useful. One way to look at it, as a practical matter, is that it makes Web applications more like dedicated local computer applications, rather than having to deal with data the way Web applications traditionally did so, with poor user interactivity and frequent round-trips for data operations. Now with the cutting-edge of application development on the mobile device, developers and service providers are dealing with some tough questions, such as how well Web 2.0-style applications work on mobile devices. Some have been arguing that simple apping of the PC style of Web 2.0 to mobile handsets is doomed to failure, and there is much to support that argument. One of the hallmarks of these newer, richer apps is that they push data liberally out to the client (generally in XML formats) in order for the client to be able to display more to the user and allow rich editing techniques. On a handset, the memory and bandwidth this entails are expensive, both in their scarcity relative to a PC and in the battery life they consume. Latency is another problem that may affect mobile applications in a more profound way than on a PC, which typically has a much faster and cheaper connection. Building up and tearing down connections is a frequent operation in PC-based Web apps, even in Web 2.0. But in a mobile environment, it can cause large bottlenecks since the connection overhead is much greater. And of course these last two problems work at cross-purposes to each other. The solution to the latency issue is usually in more aggressive and intelligent pre-caching of data, which aggravates the memory and bandwidth problem. The solutions are found in good engineering of trade-offs and in advances, both in the handsets and the networks. These trade-offs also put a burden on the back-end applications which, in order to deal with different types of devices and connections optimally, need to grade the quality of data and perhaps even the number of features in apps in order to keep the user experience pleasant and the application affordable. One approach that is used by many apps is the following. Rather than use the standard browser interfaces, create custom-client applications that manage the data more effectively, perhaps with custom compression. But custom-client apps are an approach well worth avoiding if possible. Users and administrators are leery of having to manage multiple client applications, and of the potential for security problems they present. The added burden to developers in having to create a custom app ­ or perhaps several versions of a custom app for different types of devices ­ also won't sit well with developers. There's no way around the mobile handset being a harder environment to write for, especially for the data-rich applications of Web 2.0. But developers will still flock to it because of the advantages it presents, such as the ability to use GPS data from the device. And the more the user relies on the application, on or off the PC, the more valuable the application is. In the end, it's likely that the technological advances in the power of handsets, power management, bandwidth, and the intelligence of networks will make these problems obsolete, just as they largely obsoleted the need for PC application developers to do their own memory and device management. And even in the interim, as we build these networks and applications into what we expect in the long term, they are gaining wild popularity. Nothing speaks better to their value. On 2/15/07 4:15 PM, "elw@stderr.org" <elw@stderr.org> wrote:

...

Uh, this will sound naive, but is Web 2.0 actually using larger system implentations Internet2 (IPv6) or is it traveling on the same IPv4 platform as the WWW today?

IPv4.

I don't know of any non-experimental hosts that are reachable by IPv6.

If someone anecdotally knows of a 'biggie' that is routing/advertising IPv6 services, I'd love to hear about it.

--e _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

-- Janna Quitney Anderson Assistant Professor of Communications Director of Internet Projects School of Communications Elon University andersj@elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) (336) 446-0486 (h)

Alexis, good to see that we agree on so much. In fact, I feel we totally agree in what was at the core of this discussion. At 21:12 Uhr +0000 14.2.2007, Alexis Turner wrote:

To be honest, it seems like you are hell bent on getting me to agree to some sort of slippery slope scenario where I ultimately agree that the modern iteration of the web is exactly the same as a library card catalog.

No, this is not in my intention. I am simply trying to throw in enough examples that show the changes in the Web we have been seeing recently are not a paradigm shift (that silly 1 2 marketing scam) as we already agreed on, but in good continuation of earlier great developments, functions and ideas.

I don't believe that and I don't plan on agreeing to it that easily. If I gain 1 pound, I'm still thin. If I gain another. Still thin. I start to look a little jowly after 20, though. The web, likewise, looks a little different after so many years of development. Why get hung up on terminology...1.0 v. 2.0? Has our approach matured, or hasn't it?

Sure, yes, of course! I wouldn't call you or the Web "fat", though. Universally binary maybe ;-)

In what kind of scenario would it be possible for a person to use the web without having to find something?

As an aside: the term "surfing" was explicitly used for what people do on the Web, because it semantically contains rather large portions of drifting aimlessly, being shoveled where the waves go, being blown away etc., and not searching with a clear goal. Thanks for pointing out that most activities on the Web involve at least some searching, and may it be for the mouse arrow on the screen...

So, in other words, your only real complaint is the actual terminology "web 2.0?"

The terminology *and* what is associated with it: Brainwashing by dichotomizing the multitude of developments, ideas, functions, applications, communities that make up the Web. Degrading so many great ideas by comparing them to a subset and suggesting that the subset is fundamentally better. Take the Google (search engine) example again that supposedly is 1.0. 2.0 talk would suggest that it is backwardish to develop or use something like Google. But this is not true, of course. Social software is a relatively new concept, as is the Blog. But there are many many others, just think and remember. Off the hat: listserv, Gopher, forms, Dejanews, The Well, irc, Amazon, elbot, ICQ, Javascript, Java, MUD, frames, CSS, open source, Yahoo!, VRML, Panoramas, plugin, Netscape, PGP, top level domain expansion, Skype, PDF, spiders, open access, wireless, paperball, meta search, DHTML, https, fax2mail, PHP, Webcam... definitely not a 1.0_2.0able development!

Does that mean that you do or do not believe that certain tasks are approached with a different mindset or set of tools...on a large scale?

Well, here we are - as has been mentioned before, we are having this discussion via a plain old - and I would like to say: very well maintained! - *listserv*. Oh, hey, throw some tags at me ;-)

If yes, how significant is that difference? (In other words, how many pounds does the web have to gain before you feel that it no longer looks exactly the same as it used to?)

It never looks the same. Part of the reason is that I have only two eyes. Eye 1.0 and eye 2.0 ;-)

Thanks for the good discussion.... -Alexis

Same here --u -- PD Dr. Ulf-Dietrich Reips Past President, Society for Computers in Psychology (http://scip.ws) Editor, International Journal of Internet Science (http://www.ijis.net) *new address* Universität Zürich Psychologisches Institut Binzmühlestr. 14/13 8050 Zürich, Switzerland iScience portal (http://psych-iscience.unizh.ch/)

Thanks everyone for the references! I'll certainly send out a compilation to the list. A couple of comments: There's generally two approaches to this discussion, the technology/ functionality and the social. O'Reilly does a pretty good job breaking down what is new with Web 2.0 from the functional/technical perspective. Can Web 2.0 be accomplished with 1.0 technology? Probably. What I think makes the 'idea' of Web 2.0 different from 1.0 is the social element (or user content). The technology matters too but mostly for its ability to remove technical barriers to the social. Consider the difference between Google and del.icio.us. Both provide a means for organizing content on the web. And in both cases the resulting organization is based on social elements, such that users contribute to relevancy, meaning, and the definitions of things based on their use, consumption, and contribution to content. Google does this through tracking use; clicks, links, and a 100 other variables that comprise their proprietary algorithm. Google uses information behavior to organize Web content. User input is passive and (mostly) unintentional in this case. With del.icio.us, however, user contribution is active and intentional. We (and this gets to the Wesch video) choose how to categorize content by tagging. Web 2.0 in this example has to do with the aggregate of user-organized content. (I suppose I could just say folksonomy at this point). Sure, if we break them down to their individual parts, the difference between Google and del.icio.us can be minimized, if not rendered insignificant. The significant differences are to be found in the aggregate where organizational structure, meaning, definitions, and plurality emerge. This occurs via Google page rank as well, but with the use of a Google-defined algorithm and based on unintentional user contribution. If we further consider that search engines are our primary access to the public web, the difference between Google search results and del.icio.us search results would be one example of the difference between 1.0 and 2.0, in terms of content. I think an interesting research question with regard to search is, what does this difference mean? Clifford On Feb 13, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Ulf-Dietrich Reips wrote:

You there write: "The incredible thing is that it offers a radically new approach to managing and finding information. Web 2.0 offers both information and tools, if you will, where Web 1.0 offered only information. Methods like XML, RSS, AJAX, and tagging, sites like del.icio.us or netvibes - these offer methods more powerful than search engines and hyperlinks for understanding, and finding, how information is connected. They improve the ambient findability of relevant material, communities, peers, and ideas." So, wouldn't this mean that "Web 2.0" started with Google search? Or ... wait... it started with Yahoo catalogues. No ... wait ... it started with Netscape inventing Livescript (now Javascript). No, hey, it must have started with the implementation of Web *forms*. Uh oh, and soon we are in TBL's office in Geneva looking at the first Web browser... --u

If you use a basic definition of social networking as “a social structure made of nodes which are generally individuals or organizations. It indicates the ways in which they are connected through various social familiarities ranging from casual acquaintance to close familial bonds” (2007, February 14). Then the creation and existence of such communication networks dates back to the early days of computer networking (see Kleinrock, n.d.). So what is the difference between “pre-Web 1.0,” and “Web 2.0”? I believe you can sum it up in two words…access and purpose. Early CMC was limited to a select few people with access to the linked computer systems necessary for communication and the knowledge, skills, and abilities to use the systems. Of course, in many of these early communications, the systems were not only the tools for the actual contact but the reason the contact was required. Today many more people have access to the technologies needed to make online connections, while I won’t say that connection is universally available we are much closer to that dream then we were in 1969. Likewise, as the use of technology has simplified more people can use the systems without having intimate knowledge of how the systems they are using actually work. Particularly, in my teenage research population, most all of the teens from developed countries have access to computers at some point during their week. So many more people are available to make connections then were available in the early days of networked computing. Of course now many of these computer users go online specifically to make and maintain their human connections. For many of them communication has become their primary purpose for accessing computer systems. The teens I talk with go online to blog, to rate music and films, to post videos on YouTube (where networks are created around specific videos and the videographers themselves), and to make new friends or to talk to their old friends…among many other ways that they connect and maintain their connections electronically…while they do “search” for information it is not the reason they regularly go online. For them the idea that early CMC was about the systems themselves seems quaint and pretty boring, they connect electronically through many sites/systems around many topics and many people. Current social networking technology allows for more variety of connection but the basics of networking remain the same. So it seems to me that the discussion should be less about “Web 2.0” and more about the number of potential nodes, particularly nodes with limited computer programming skills, and the reasons why these nods exist online. Reference List Social network (2007, February 14). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking Kleinrock, Leonard (n.d.). The Day the Infant Internet Uttered its First Words. Leonard Kleinrock's Home Page. Retrieved February 14, 2007, from http://www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/LK/Inet/1stmesg.html Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Student - School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Adjunct Instructor - School of Informatics, IUPUI, Indianapolis IN USA and IUPUC, Columbus IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.com

Jill: The most obvious examples are Digging for the Truth with Josh Bernstein; Engineering An Empire with Peter Weller and Modern Marvels on The History Channel. However, the most purely academic show is an academic class: Bravo's Actors Studio at the New School in New York City. I found these examples when conducting my research and utilized the model for my study. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Jill Walker Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:12 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Web 2.0 - "the machine is us?" I used this video to start my class on blogging last week - and yes, it worked very well as a discussion-starter. I think one of the most encouraging things about this video is that it's made by an academic - Michael Wesch is an Associate Professor of anthropology and is doing research on "digital anthropology". He said he was writing a conference paper and felt that it would be so much more obvious to use the medium to express the ideas - and certainly that was a great way of getting some of these ideas out there. The video's been the most linked-to video (according to technorati.com) for the past week (over 5000 blogs link to it), it's the most viewed this month on YouTube's science and technology category and has nearly a million views. That's pretty awesome for an academic presentation of any kind! It's also an example of a presentation that performs that which it's talking about - performative research, if you like. And while there are clearly many things not dealt with in the video (it's only 4 and a half minutes long) it grapples with some major issues - just the claims and counterclaims about what paper permits as a medium does are wonderful. Does anyone know of other examples of academics who've made things online like this that actually do have some academic content and that have become wildly popular? Jill ---- Jill Walker Associate Professor, Dept of Humanistic Informatics, University of Bergen, Norway http://jilltxt.net

Wesch does an excellent job in a brief presentation of providing a tentative definition of 'Web 2.0' and hinting at its possible impacts.

He does not attempt to provide a clear explanation of the ways in which Web 2.0 is distinctly different from 'social software' that has been around on the Internet since the beginning (Usenet, mailing lists, collaboratively authored FAQs etc) nor does he discuss the implications of the fact that Web 2.0 users are still a minority of users and active Web 2.0 contribution is largely the work of a still smaller minority (something I recently posted about in more detail on the Media@LSE weblog here):

http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/2007/02/overstating-the- significance-of-web-20/

But of course a 5 minute video is not a paper so that would be too much to expect - the video would make an excellent starting point for discussion of these issues in a classroom.

--- David Brake, Doctoral Student in Media and Communications, London School of Economics & Political Science <http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/study/ mPhilPhDMediaAndCommunications.htm> Also see http://davidbrake.org/ (home page), http://blog.org/ (personal weblog) and http://get.to/lseblog (academic groupblog) Author of Dealing With E-Mail - <http://davidbrake.org/ dealingwithemail/> callto://DavidBrake (Skype.com's Instant Messenger and net phone)

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

What I like most about the Actor's Studio, besides it is a perfect research model, is that contrary to popular belief it utilizes qualitative research methods that range from biography to case study approaches and it is interactive in the live event and electronic feedback that students or viewers can provide online to the producer. The host is a Broadway producer but also a reknowned professor in the field of communications and theatre arts. This show is downloaded heavily on iTunes which is why it was placed on iTunes in the first place. I had mapped out my own approach for my research that I was able to merge with this established method. The History Channel, Discovery Networks and National Geographic provide wildly popular shows, along with PBS and NPR (both have done well with new media)but the show that utilizes the standard classroom with qualitative research and interactivity and the ability to review through downloading and streaming is the Actors Studio on Bravo. The History Channel stuff is great but it is more of the traditional approach which I find interesting, but my research indicates that the interactivity combined with this approach and the use of entertainment techniques has the stickiness factor. Chris -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of fred fuchs Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:13 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Web 2.0 - "the machine is us?" On Tuesday 13 February 2007 11:14, Heidelberg, Chris wrote:

Engineering An Empire with Peter Weller and Modern Marvels on The History Channel.

I've seen and enjoyed both. Engineering An Empire is faster-paced, and probably better for classroom use. The episode about Caesar bridging the Rhine was particularly good. Modern Marvels covers a far wider subject area. I find a few of the episodes drag a bit. Either could be very useful in the classroom. Fred -- Fred Fuchs, FredF4364 on AIM 713-429-1750 Authorized Member, Firesabre Consulting LLC Content Services for Second Life Creation, Training, and Management (Gus Plisskin in Second Life) _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

That's pretty awesome for an academic presentation of any kind!

Does anyone know of other examples of academics who've made things online like this that actually do have some academic content and that have become wildly popular?

Erm... i remember some web page about rationalism in the work of Spinoza but well... pagerank was not even thought of yet, let alone technorati. But it was definitely cool, and it even had a style sheet. :o) Does Alice's speech about her social network chart in the beginning of L-word Season 1 Episode 2 count for academic content? :o) again. Seriously, i'm not sure this (really nice) video teaches anything to anyone that has not been taught already, since its popularity is ranked from *inside* the 'small world' of web2.0. But i agree with the fact that it's good material for an introductory lecture or discussion, even though the medium hardly allows skepticism, which is in my point of view quite a requirement for an academic content.

PS: Clifford, if you get any off list interesting refs. on this I will be very interested, so please mail me.

So will i. A digest on the list would be great. -- Christophe Prieur, prieur@liafa.jussieu.fr (+33/0)1 45 29 44 36 SUSI / Orange France Telecom R&D (Sociologie des Usages) LIAFA / Universite Paris Diderot (Algorithmique)

Maybe this'll speak to those outside that world (?) - or still inside the previous one. To draw someone out of a box, it's good to start with the window(s) they have. -eg

-----Original Message----- From: Ulf-Dietrich Reips Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:25 AM

Plus, contrary to what the pseudo-ideology and historically false claims of "Web 2.0" (paradigm shift, user is in power, heavily interactive...) says: --> this is a VIDEO (sometimes not even readable, because in proprietary format, see Paul's posting) and it shows mostly TEXT written and edited by one user (Wesch, I presume) on screens. Brave new world *shiver* ;-) Wondering whether the simplicity of the format may just be the crucial point in why this is so attractive to the 'small world' of web2.0.

Best --u _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

Den 13. feb. 2007 kl. 16.12 skrev Jill Walker:

Does anyone know of other examples of academics who've made things online like this that actually do have some academic content and that have become wildly popular?

It's not online, but the most parallell example in my memory is Scott McCloud's _Understanding Comics_, a theory of comics written/drawn as a comic book. Depending on how you define academic (no, I do not want to open that discussion again), Jacob Nielsen's _Alertbox_ (http://useit.com/ alertbox) used to be interesting and research-based back in the day, before it degenerated into plugs for his own expensive seminars. --anders -- Anders Fagerjord, dr. art. Associate professor, Department of Media and Communcation, Unversity of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern N-0317 OSLO Norway http://www.media.uio.no http://fagerjord.no

On 2/13/07, Paul Jones <pjones@metalab.unc.edu> wrote:

I am sad however that the presentation itself is only available on youtube ... the work is listed as CC license but is only available in non-free formats that don't allow for easy remix.

Well, not *easy* perhaps, but certainly not impossible. There are a variety of scripts for Firefox that allow for the easy downloading of video from YouTube. Or you can use one of the online services, e.g.: http://www.videodl.org/ This will yield a flash video (flv) file that still needs to be transcoded before it is easily manipulable. I use SUPER on a PC, usually, but VLC, can perform much the same function on a Mac. So, an extra step required in there, but one that I seem to be using quite a lot lately to make use of materials found on YouTube. Fairly straightforward to convert to Quicktime to include in a presentation, etc. Alex -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //

The interesting thing about the CC license and youtube is that in youtube's terms of agreement they reserve the right to use the video for any commercial purposes they want so long as you have it posted there (e.g., I don't remember the details of the CC licence, but, if it's nc-non-commercial, and youtube has adds, this is already being violated.) Having a CC license on a youtube video really doesn't make sense. There are so much better options. Blip.tv is the best, in my view and they specifically support CC licenses. In addition, ourmedia.org, which uses the internet archive is great too, though they've had some reliability issues, which, as I understand, are being fixed. ... Richard -- Richard H. Hall, PhD http://umr.edu/~rhall On 2/13/07 9:36 AM, "Paul Jones" <pjones@metalab.unc.edu> wrote:

I am sad however that the presentation itself is only available on youtube and from MediaFire (as a windowsmedia file -- one that doesn't play on my mac which makes me doubly sad). the work is listed as CC license but is only available in non-free formats that don't allow for easy remix. Love the Mojiti option which is real Web 2.0 (except that download isn't there either)

========================================================================== Paul Jones "Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation." Alasdair Gray http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/blog/ pjones@ibiblio.org voice: (919) 962-7600 fax: (919) 962-8071 ===========================================================================

Paging Mr. McLuhan.... ;) ----- Michael T. Zimmer Doctoral Candidate, Culture and Communication, New York University Student Fellow, Information Law Institute, NYU Law School e: michael.zimmer@nyu.edu w: http://michaelzimmer.org On Feb 13, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Richard Hall wrote:

What is interesting to me, is the presentation. Had this message not been embedded in this creative presentation, it would have been much less powerful.

... Rihcard

-- Richard H. Hall, PhD http://umr.edu/~rhall

On 2/13/07 5:27 AM, "David Brake" <d.r.brake@lse.ac.uk> wrote:

...

Wesch does an excellent job in a brief presentation of providing a tentative definition of 'Web 2.0' and hinting at its possible impacts. He does not attempt to provide a clear explanation of the ways in which Web 2.0 is distinctly different from 'social software' that has been around on the Internet since the beginning (Usenet, mailing lists, collaboratively authored FAQs etc) nor does he discuss the implications of the fact that Web 2.0 users are still a minority of users and active Web 2.0 contribution is largely the work of a still smaller minority (something I recently posted about in more detail on the Media@LSE weblog here):

http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/2007/02/overstating-the- significance-of-web-20/

But of course a 5 minute video is not a paper so that would be too much to expect - the video would make an excellent starting point for discussion of these issues in a classroom.

--- David Brake, Doctoral Student in Media and Communications, London School of Economics & Political Science <http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/study/ mPhilPhDMediaAndCommunications.htm> Also see http://davidbrake.org/ (home page), http://blog.org/ (personal weblog) and http://get.to/lseblog (academic groupblog) Author of Dealing With E-Mail - <http://davidbrake.org/ dealingwithemail/> callto://DavidBrake (Skype.com's Instant Messenger and net phone)

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http:// aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/