Re: [Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0
Mark Warschaur mentioned O'Reilly Media as the cited progenitor of the term Web 2.0, and I'd argue Tim O'Reilly's (rather lengthy) 2005 article--appropriately titled "What is Web 2.0?"--is probably still the best general source on the concept: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.h... According to the concept as built there, Alex Halavais is effectively right, that the term denotes "companies that have attracted funding or make money on the web over the last few years," but also that "it suggests some kind of breaking point with earlier approaches to design," to wit: "In exploring the seven principles above, we've highlighted some of the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we've explored demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others. Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core competencies of Web 2.0 companies: * Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability * Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them * Trusting users as co-developers * Harnessing collective intelligence * Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service * Software above the level of a single device * Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models The next time a company claims that it's "Web 2.0," test their features against the list above. The more points they score, the more they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven." I'd advocate the use of the term, if only because of its circulation as industry vernacular, but its use should be well-qualified. As a fluid construct (one used here to designate "companies with certain competencies," rather than, say, qualities of specific technologies) perhaps the best course would be to qualify it as "O'Reilly's (or whomever's) conceptualization of Web 2.0." -- Lane DeNicola Doctoral Candidate | Dept. of Science & Technology Studies Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute http://www.nacresky.com/lad Tried the Science Studies Search Engine? <http://www.nacresky.com/ssse>
In other words, Web 1.0 was something created by individuals, and Web 2.0 is the Web through the lens of business, user-leveraged experience, and market drive research. -Alexis On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Lane DeNicola wrote: ::Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:11:50 -0400 ::From: Lane DeNicola <denicola@alum.rpi.edu> ::Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0 :: ::Mark Warschaur mentioned O'Reilly Media as the cited progenitor of the ::term Web 2.0, and I'd argue Tim O'Reilly's (rather lengthy) 2005 ::article--appropriately titled "What is Web 2.0?"--is probably still ::the best general source on the concept: :: ::http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.h... :: ::According to the concept as built there, Alex Halavais is effectively ::right, that the term denotes "companies that have attracted funding or ::make money on the web over the last few years," but also that "it ::suggests some kind of breaking point with earlier approaches to ::design," to wit: :: ::"In exploring the seven principles above, we've highlighted some of ::the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we've explored ::demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others. ::Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core ::competencies of Web 2.0 companies: :: :: * Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability :: * Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get ::richer as more people use them :: * Trusting users as co-developers :: * Harnessing collective intelligence :: * Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service :: * Software above the level of a single device :: * Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models :: ::The next time a company claims that it's "Web 2.0," test their ::features against the list above. The more points they score, the more ::they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one ::area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven." :: ::I'd advocate the use of the term, if only because of its circulation ::as industry vernacular, but its use should be well-qualified. As a ::fluid construct (one used here to designate "companies with certain ::competencies," rather than, say, qualities of specific technologies) ::perhaps the best course would be to qualify it as "O'Reilly's (or ::whomever's) conceptualization of Web 2.0." :: ::-- ::Lane DeNicola ::Doctoral Candidate | Dept. of Science & Technology Studies ::Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ::http://www.nacresky.com/lad ::Tried the Science Studies Search Engine? <http://www.nacresky.com/ssse> ::_______________________________________________ ::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/ ::
I would violently disagree with this categorization. Web1.0 was the boom where companies sold fiction to venture capitalists and walked out like bandits. The vast majority of what is categorized as Web2.0 was built in the rubble of the crash. There is no doubt that the last year has involved numerous buyouts by large corporations but the vast majority of Web2.0 apps were built in total startup mode without an eye for business, with a focus on people like the creators, and with zero market research. Blogger, LJ, Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Wikipedia, Flickr, Socialtext, Upcoming, ... these are not big corporate projects, even if they've been bought or expanded beyond their britches. With big megacorps embracing Web2.0, funny things are happening, but that's not the crux of what this term is signaling. On Apr 20, 2007, at 3:56 PM, Alexis Turner wrote:
In other words, Web 1.0 was something created by individuals, and Web 2.0 is the Web through the lens of business, user-leveraged experience, and market drive research. -Alexis
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Lane DeNicola wrote:
::Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:11:50 -0400 ::From: Lane DeNicola <denicola@alum.rpi.edu> ::Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0 :: ::Mark Warschaur mentioned O'Reilly Media as the cited progenitor of the ::term Web 2.0, and I'd argue Tim O'Reilly's (rather lengthy) 2005 ::article--appropriately titled "What is Web 2.0?"--is probably still ::the best general source on the concept: :: ::http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what- is-web-20.html :: ::According to the concept as built there, Alex Halavais is effectively ::right, that the term denotes "companies that have attracted funding or ::make money on the web over the last few years," but also that "it ::suggests some kind of breaking point with earlier approaches to ::design," to wit: :: ::"In exploring the seven principles above, we've highlighted some of ::the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we've explored ::demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others. ::Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core ::competencies of Web 2.0 companies: :: :: * Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability :: * Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get ::richer as more people use them :: * Trusting users as co-developers :: * Harnessing collective intelligence :: * Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service :: * Software above the level of a single device :: * Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models :: ::The next time a company claims that it's "Web 2.0," test their ::features against the list above. The more points they score, the more ::they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one ::area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven." :: ::I'd advocate the use of the term, if only because of its circulation ::as industry vernacular, but its use should be well-qualified. As a ::fluid construct (one used here to designate "companies with certain ::competencies," rather than, say, qualities of specific technologies) ::perhaps the best course would be to qualify it as "O'Reilly's (or ::whomever's) conceptualization of Web 2.0." :: ::-- ::Lane DeNicola ::Doctoral Candidate | Dept. of Science & Technology Studies ::Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ::http://www.nacresky.com/lad ::Tried the Science Studies Search Engine? <http://www.nacresky.com/ ssse> ::_______________________________________________ ::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/
- - - - - - - - - - d a n a h ( d o t ) o r g - - - - - - - - - - "taken out of context i must seem so strange" musings :: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts
vast majority of Web2.0 apps were built in total startup mode [...] with a focus on people like the creators
been bought or expanded beyond their britches. With big megacorps embracing Web2.0, funny things are happening, but that's not the crux of what this term is signaling.
+1 danah Funny things, indeed. --e
On 4/21/07, danah boyd <aoir.z3z@danah.org> wrote: <snip>
There is no doubt that the last year has involved numerous buyouts by large corporations but the vast majority of Web2.0 apps were built in total startup mode without an eye for business, with a focus on people like the creators, and with zero market research. Blogger, LJ, Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Wikipedia, Flickr, Socialtext, Upcoming, ... these are not big corporate projects, even if they've been bought or expanded beyond their britches.
While I would certainly agree that these projects were started, generally, without heavy VC investment or a clear path to profit, it is only within that business environment that the term "Web 2.0" has come into heavy use. These are great examples precisely because none of them started out calling themselves "Web 2.0" efforts--it is a label that has been added afterward. I'm not suggesting, as some have, that this is just another hype cycle. Nonetheless, when I see the term used, it is almost always within the context of investment and profit. Sure, there are exceptions (Web 2.0 for education), but I think it was born of the Wired-and-Fast-Company set, and continues to carry those connotations. Again, my greatest concern is that it doesn't mean all that much, while conflating far too much. Lane's post notwithstanding, Web 2.0 seems to be little more than a shortened way of saying something about the Web as it is used today. In other words, Web 2.0 is the Web: why proliferate terms in an area where we already have a surfeit? -- // // 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 //
Again, my greatest concern is that it doesn't mean all that much, while conflating far too much. Lane's post notwithstanding, Web 2.0 seems to be little more than a shortened way of saying something about the Web as it is used today. In other words, Web 2.0 is the Web: why proliferate terms in an area where we already have a surfeit?
I would agree with this. Web 2.0 simply represents an evolutionary step in the use of the Web, one in which (a) the Web becomes a platform for applications that once resided solely on local PCs or LANs (Google Apps, etc.), and (b) the Web becomes a file and message store and display platform for anyone who wants to participate (Facebook et al). These are significant changes from the Web of the late 90s, but the capabilities were largely there from the beginning. In fact, in some important respects Web 2.0 is a return to Tim Berners-Lee's original conception, when he saw Web pages as things to be edited and added to by anyone who visited them. Neil Randall
Alex - while i totally agree that it's gotten conflated in all sorts of ways, i actually do think that it is an effort to signal a shift that has taken place. The shift has multiple dimensions, some of which are business, few of which are technical, most of which are social. I've written parts of this in different places. Many are under "Design, Web2.0 and Social Software" at http://www.zephoria.org/ thoughts/bestof.html Social technology practices have changed dramatically post-crash. Much of this has to do with the fact that so many people are online and it's no longer a marginalized minority. People are organizing around friends (and Friends) instead of around topics of interest. The structure is built on networks of people and information instead of room and place metaphors. Corporations are motivated to help people connect and share rather than just buy. Sure, there was a lot of early CMC tools that were adopted en-masse but community sites like The Well never scaled to the degree that the current ones do, nor did they provide the same types of socialization opportunities for mainstream culture. Uploading media was a bitch if you didn't have a unix account and a decent webserver. Now, hosting and locating media is not the issue. You're welcome to ignore the term "web2.0" (and i definitely have huge huge huge problems with it) but it's meant to signal a shift that people know and can feel, even if they can't describe. Of course, it's an ugly term... but so is blogging and we've (finally) embraced that. Blogging is a good example of something that was not a shift in technology but in practice. I think that the same is true in what web2.0 is meant to signal. This is one of the reasons that i absolutely love Michael Wesch's Web2.0 video. It points at the evolution of practices that have come to be called Web2.0. I genuinely believe that it does mean something, although i agree that all terms conflate and fail to support clean definitional boundaries. :: shrug:: But i'm ok with that. Language is about impressions not precision, even if we wish the latter. danah On Apr 21, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Alex Halavais wrote:
Again, my greatest concern is that it doesn't mean all that much, while conflating far too much. Lane's post notwithstanding, Web 2.0 seems to be little more than a shortened way of saying something about the Web as it is used today. In other words, Web 2.0 is the Web: why proliferate terms in an area where we already have a surfeit?
- - - - - - - - - - d a n a h ( d o t ) o r g - - - - - - - - - - "taken out of context i must seem so strange" musings :: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts
Alex - while i totally agree that it's gotten conflated in all sorts of ways, i actually do think that it is an effort to signal a shift that has taken place. The shift has multiple dimensions, some of which are business, few of which are technical, most of which are social. I've written parts of this in different places. Many are under "Design, Web2.0 and Social Software" at http://www.zephoria.org/ thoughts/bestof.html Social technology practices have changed dramatically post-crash. Much of this has to do with the fact that so many people are online and it's no longer a marginalized minority. People are organizing around friends (and Friends) instead of around topics of interest. The structure is built on networks of people and information instead of room and place metaphors. Corporations are motivated to help people connect and share rather than just buy. Sure, there was a lot of early CMC tools that were adopted en-masse but community sites like The Well never scaled to the degree that the current ones do, nor did they provide the same types of socialization opportunities for mainstream culture. Uploading media was a bitch if you didn't have a unix account and a decent webserver. Now, hosting and locating media is not the issue. You're welcome to ignore the term "web2.0" (and i definitely have huge huge huge problems with it) but it's meant to signal a shift that people know and can feel, even if they can't describe. Of course, it's an ugly term... but so is blogging and we've (finally) embraced that. Blogging is a good example of something that was not a shift in technology but in practice. I think that the same is true in what web2.0 is meant to signal. On Apr 21, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Alex Halavais wrote:
Again, my greatest concern is that it doesn't mean all that much, while conflating far too much. Lane's post notwithstanding, Web 2.0 seems to be little more than a shortened way of saying something about the Web as it is used today. In other words, Web 2.0 is the Web: why proliferate terms in an area where we already have a surfeit?
- - - - - - - - - - d a n a h ( d o t ) o r g - - - - - - - - - - "taken out of context i must seem so strange" musings :: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts
I posed it in my last message (in its brevity), as a simple summation of Lane's 7 points - half of which were very, very specifically business oriented. I don't think the tenor of the post matched especially well with the chosen definitions and I was calling her (him?) on it. The fact is, though, it's a bit of a a chicken & egg problem, isn't it? Is Web 2.0 built by business, or co-opted by business? Personally, I think the latter, which hasn't been mentioned much on the list but which finds a nice balance between the two sides (which I see as the Romantic Rollers vs. the Jaded Spades). Even I, on occasion, can get misty eyed and hopeful and agree with your claim that things started out in basements by people with all the best intentions. We're going to share! It's social! Power to the (many) people! And, yes, I would also agree that this is not necessarily a bad thing. But let's be real about the difference between what we want at the beginning of the day and what we get at the end of it. it's usually not everything we dreamed of, even if we get part way there. So, yeah, maybe things started out that way, but by its very nature, doesn't Web 2.0 just scream to corporations to look at it - after all, what more could an investor want than to know, up front, that millions of customers are clamoring for a product? By its very collaborative nature, any remotely succesful Web 2.0 "product," "service," or "platform" is going to ask to become corporatized, because it already has a devoted community. Or customer base, if your eye is bent to looking at it in those terms. Corporations take what's good about 2.0 and twist it to their own ends. At the end of the day, then, you may be part of a community and enjoy all the perks therein, but the food's provided by McDonald's. -Alexis On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, danah boyd wrote: ::Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 05:59:53 -0700 ::From: danah boyd <aoir.z3z@danah.org> ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org, subbies@redheadedstepchild.org ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0 :: ::I would violently disagree with this categorization. Web1.0 was the boom ::where companies sold fiction to venture capitalists and walked out like ::bandits. The vast majority of what is categorized as Web2.0 was built in the ::rubble of the crash. There is no doubt that the last year has involved ::numerous buyouts by large corporations but the vast majority of Web2.0 apps ::were built in total startup mode without an eye for business, with a focus on ::people like the creators, and with zero market research. Blogger, LJ, ::Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Wikipedia, Flickr, ::Socialtext, Upcoming, ... these are not big corporate projects, even if ::they've been bought or expanded beyond their britches. With big megacorps ::embracing Web2.0, funny things are happening, but that's not the crux of what ::this term is signaling. :: :: ::On Apr 20, 2007, at 3:56 PM, Alexis Turner wrote: :: ::> In other words, Web 1.0 was something created by individuals, and Web 2.0 is ::> the ::> Web through the lens of business, user-leveraged experience, and market ::> drive ::> research. ::> -Alexis ::> ::> ::> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Lane DeNicola wrote: ::> ::> ::Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:11:50 -0400 ::> ::From: Lane DeNicola <denicola@alum.rpi.edu> ::> ::Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::> ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::> ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0 ::> :: ::> ::Mark Warschaur mentioned O'Reilly Media as the cited progenitor of the ::> ::term Web 2.0, and I'd argue Tim O'Reilly's (rather lengthy) 2005 ::> ::article--appropriately titled "What is Web 2.0?"--is probably still ::> ::the best general source on the concept: ::> :: ::> ::http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what- ::> is-web-20.html ::> :: ::> ::According to the concept as built there, Alex Halavais is effectively ::> ::right, that the term denotes "companies that have attracted funding or ::> ::make money on the web over the last few years," but also that "it ::> ::suggests some kind of breaking point with earlier approaches to ::> ::design," to wit: ::> :: ::> ::"In exploring the seven principles above, we've highlighted some of ::> ::the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we've explored ::> ::demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others. ::> ::Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core ::> ::competencies of Web 2.0 companies: ::> :: ::> :: * Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability ::> :: * Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get ::> ::richer as more people use them ::> :: * Trusting users as co-developers ::> :: * Harnessing collective intelligence ::> :: * Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service ::> :: * Software above the level of a single device ::> :: * Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models ::> :: ::> ::The next time a company claims that it's "Web 2.0," test their ::> ::features against the list above. The more points they score, the more ::> ::they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one ::> ::area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven." ::> :: ::> ::I'd advocate the use of the term, if only because of its circulation ::> ::as industry vernacular, but its use should be well-qualified. As a ::> ::fluid construct (one used here to designate "companies with certain ::> ::competencies," rather than, say, qualities of specific technologies) ::> ::perhaps the best course would be to qualify it as "O'Reilly's (or ::> ::whomever's) conceptualization of Web 2.0." ::> :: ::> ::-- ::> ::Lane DeNicola ::> ::Doctoral Candidate | Dept. of Science & Technology Studies ::> ::Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ::> ::http://www.nacresky.com/lad ::> ::Tried the Science Studies Search Engine? <http://www.nacresky.com/ssse> ::> ::_______________________________________________ ::> ::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/ :: ::- - - - - - - - - - d a n a h ( d o t ) o r g - - - - - - - - - - ::"taken out of context i must seem so strange" :: ::musings :: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts :: :: :: :: ::
The forerunners of Web 2.0 may have had no commercial goals beyond building community, but newer startups have gone beyond that. They seek to build a community and, crucially, to then get bought out by Google or Yahoo! and make some quick cash. It's very short-term and very explicit. I see a lot of backlash against this business model from people like Mark Zuckerberg who, at least on the surface, appear to honestly value some of the eye-misting principles Alexis enumerated below. Kurt -- Kurt Luther Ph.D. Student, College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia, USA Alexis Turner wrote:
I posed it in my last message (in its brevity), as a simple summation of Lane's 7 points - half of which were very, very specifically business oriented. I don't think the tenor of the post matched especially well with the chosen definitions and I was calling her (him?) on it.
The fact is, though, it's a bit of a a chicken & egg problem, isn't it? Is Web 2.0 built by business, or co-opted by business? Personally, I think the latter, which hasn't been mentioned much on the list but which finds a nice balance between the two sides (which I see as the Romantic Rollers vs. the Jaded Spades).
Even I, on occasion, can get misty eyed and hopeful and agree with your claim that things started out in basements by people with all the best intentions. We're going to share! It's social! Power to the (many) people! And, yes, I would also agree that this is not necessarily a bad thing. But let's be real about the difference between what we want at the beginning of the day and what we get at the end of it. it's usually not everything we dreamed of, even if we get part way there.
So, yeah, maybe things started out that way, but by its very nature, doesn't Web 2.0 just scream to corporations to look at it - after all, what more could an investor want than to know, up front, that millions of customers are clamoring for a product? By its very collaborative nature, any remotely succesful Web 2.0 "product," "service," or "platform" is going to ask to become corporatized, because it already has a devoted community. Or customer base, if your eye is bent to looking at it in those terms. Corporations take what's good about 2.0 and twist it to their own ends. At the end of the day, then, you may be part of a community and enjoy all the perks therein, but the food's provided by McDonald's. -Alexis
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, danah boyd wrote:
::Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 05:59:53 -0700 ::From: danah boyd <aoir.z3z@danah.org> ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org, subbies@redheadedstepchild.org ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0 :: ::I would violently disagree with this categorization. Web1.0 was the boom ::where companies sold fiction to venture capitalists and walked out like ::bandits. The vast majority of what is categorized as Web2.0 was built in the ::rubble of the crash. There is no doubt that the last year has involved ::numerous buyouts by large corporations but the vast majority of Web2.0 apps ::were built in total startup mode without an eye for business, with a focus on ::people like the creators, and with zero market research. Blogger, LJ, ::Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Wikipedia, Flickr, ::Socialtext, Upcoming, ... these are not big corporate projects, even if ::they've been bought or expanded beyond their britches. With big megacorps ::embracing Web2.0, funny things are happening, but that's not the crux of what ::this term is signaling. :: :: ::On Apr 20, 2007, at 3:56 PM, Alexis Turner wrote: :: ::> In other words, Web 1.0 was something created by individuals, and Web 2.0 is ::> the ::> Web through the lens of business, user-leveraged experience, and market ::> drive ::> research. ::> -Alexis ::> ::> ::> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Lane DeNicola wrote: ::> ::> ::Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:11:50 -0400 ::> ::From: Lane DeNicola <denicola@alum.rpi.edu> ::> ::Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::> ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::> ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0 ::> :: ::> ::Mark Warschaur mentioned O'Reilly Media as the cited progenitor of the ::> ::term Web 2.0, and I'd argue Tim O'Reilly's (rather lengthy) 2005 ::> ::article--appropriately titled "What is Web 2.0?"--is probably still ::> ::the best general source on the concept: ::> :: ::> ::http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what- ::> is-web-20.html ::> :: ::> ::According to the concept as built there, Alex Halavais is effectively ::> ::right, that the term denotes "companies that have attracted funding or ::> ::make money on the web over the last few years," but also that "it ::> ::suggests some kind of breaking point with earlier approaches to ::> ::design," to wit: ::> :: ::> ::"In exploring the seven principles above, we've highlighted some of ::> ::the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we've explored ::> ::demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others. ::> ::Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core ::> ::competencies of Web 2.0 companies: ::> :: ::> :: * Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability ::> :: * Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get ::> ::richer as more people use them ::> :: * Trusting users as co-developers ::> :: * Harnessing collective intelligence ::> :: * Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service ::> :: * Software above the level of a single device ::> :: * Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models ::> :: ::> ::The next time a company claims that it's "Web 2.0," test their ::> ::features against the list above. The more points they score, the more ::> ::they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one ::> ::area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven." ::> :: ::> ::I'd advocate the use of the term, if only because of its circulation ::> ::as industry vernacular, but its use should be well-qualified. As a ::> ::fluid construct (one used here to designate "companies with certain ::> ::competencies," rather than, say, qualities of specific technologies) ::> ::perhaps the best course would be to qualify it as "O'Reilly's (or ::> ::whomever's) conceptualization of Web 2.0." ::> :: ::> ::-- ::> ::Lane DeNicola ::> ::Doctoral Candidate | Dept. of Science & Technology Studies ::> ::Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ::> ::http://www.nacresky.com/lad ::> ::Tried the Science Studies Search Engine? <http://www.nacresky.com/ssse> ::> ::_______________________________________________ ::> ::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/ :: ::- - - - - - - - - - d a n a h ( d o t ) o r g - - - - - - - - - - ::"taken out of context i must seem so strange" :: ::musings :: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts :: :: :: :: :: _______________________________________________ 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/
Alexis wrote:
So, yeah, maybe things started out that way, but by its very nature, doesn't Web 2.0 just scream to corporations to look at it - after all, what more could an investor want than to know, up front, that millions of customers are clamoring for a product? By its very collaborative nature, any remotely succesful Web 2.0 "product," "service," or "platform" is going to ask to become corporatized, because it already has a devoted community. Or customer base, if your eye is bent to looking at it in those terms. Corporations take what's good about 2.0 and twist it to their own ends. At the end of the day, then, you may be part of a community and enjoy all the perks therein, but the food's provided by McDonald's. -Alexis
Spot on, but that's because the *term* Web 2.0 was created as a branding strategy for corporations to exploit the *phenomenon* of Web 2.0, which did not have a neat brand until it was given one (and arguably still doesn't). The term is shorthand and doesn't fit neatly with all examples of what various people would call Web 2.0 sites -- but the term's primary purpose was to create a label for something that began organically but (like most socially successful things) was becoming commercially significant. Not everything that could be described as "Web 2.0" has any real commercial significance, but if the handle fits and you want interest, it's a useful lever for gaining attention. Also, there's the very real prospect that commercial involvement will destroy the very fabric of many Web 2.0 efforts. I'm still sure (but less so than I was) that Murdoch is going to destroy MySapce in spite of his own best efforts. He's nearly done it already and it was only the founders who saved him. Time will tell. The point being that it's essential to separate the phenomenon of Web 2.0 from the sloppy and hyped use of the term Web 2.0. The two are not necessarily the same thing and mean different things to people with different intentions ... Cheers, Hughie
my personal view in this discussion is that internet research needs to take a look at the political economy of web 2.0. sure there are business interests involved in web 2.0 that have advanced and will advance its evolution. this interest might be a reaction to the dot.com crisis at the end of the millennium which caused an overall fall of the profit rates of informational capital. whenever capital enters crisis, it tries to develop new strategies for accumulation. this might have been a great influence for the emergence of web 2.0. web 2.0 contains a whole new strategy of accumulation that i term the capitalist gift economy - accumulating capital by giving free access and digital gifts to the users. web 2.0 is social just like web 2.0, but it is more social because it involves more co-operation efforts and possibilities than 1.0. surfing a web 1.0 webpages is social in the durkheimian sense of the term social facts, but it is not social in the sense of max weber's social relations. communicating or co-operating on a web 2.0 platform is social in both senses - the structuralistic and the action-theoretic one. i sometimes feel that internet research really lacks a whole lot of social theory, in this case it is obvious. in the political economy of web 2.0 an antagonism emerges: advancing co-operative social relations by web 2.0 might undermine the dominant competitive and individualistic (i.e. based on private property) model of society and strengthen co-operation and participation in overall society. so by advancing web 2.0 in order to gain particularistic economic interests (profit) and advancing the instrumental reason immanent in capital, informational capital advances the socialization of the economy towards more co-operative modes of production and interaction and hence (without knowing it) undermines its own competitive conditions of existence. i think this is the really important aspect about the political economy of web 2.0. i try to explore this aspect in my publications (cf. "internet and society" published later this year by routledge) and try to link it to marxian thinking: web 2.0 is nothing else than a contemporary reformulation of the antagonism of the productive forces and the relations of production (formulated by marx more than 150 years ago). thinkers like castells and zizek agree in this respect that hence we need certain aspects of marxian thinking for understanding the internet today. i would add that we also need a whole lot of social theory for coming to grips what web 2.0 is, how it has changed society, etc. christian Hugemusic schrieb:
Alexis wrote:
So, yeah, maybe things started out that way, but by its very nature, doesn't Web 2.0 just scream to corporations to look at it - after all, what more could an investor want than to know, up front, that millions of customers are clamoring for a product? By its very collaborative nature, any remotely succesful Web 2.0 "product," "service," or "platform" is going to ask to become corporatized, because it already has a devoted community. Or customer base, if your eye is bent to looking at it in those terms. Corporations take what's good about 2.0 and twist it to their own ends. At the end of the day, then, you may be part of a community and enjoy all the perks therein, but the food's provided by McDonald's. -Alexis
Spot on, but that's because the *term* Web 2.0 was created as a branding strategy for corporations to exploit the *phenomenon* of Web 2.0, which did not have a neat brand until it was given one (and arguably still doesn't). The term is shorthand and doesn't fit neatly with all examples of what various people would call Web 2.0 sites -- but the term's primary purpose was to create a label for something that began organically but (like most socially successful things) was becoming commercially significant. Not everything that could be described as "Web 2.0" has any real commercial significance, but if the handle fits and you want interest, it's a useful lever for gaining attention.
Also, there's the very real prospect that commercial involvement will destroy the very fabric of many Web 2.0 efforts. I'm still sure (but less so than I was) that Murdoch is going to destroy MySapce in spite of his own best efforts. He's nearly done it already and it was only the founders who saved him. Time will tell.
The point being that it's essential to separate the phenomenon of Web 2.0 from the sloppy and hyped use of the term Web 2.0. The two are not necessarily the same thing and mean different things to people with different intentions ...
Cheers, Hughie
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- -- _____________________________ Univ.Ass. Dr. Christian Fuchs Assistant Professor for Internet and Society ICT&S Center - Advanced Studies and Research in Information and Communication Technologies & Society http://www.icts.uni-salzburg.at University of Salzburg Sigmund Haffner Gasse 18 5020 Salzburg Austria christian.fuchs@sbg.ac.at Phone +43 662 8044 4823 Fax +43 662 6389 4800 Information-Society-Technology: http://fuchs.icts.sbg.ac.at http://www.icts.uni-salzburg.at/fuchs/ Managing Editor of tripleC - peer reviewed open access online journal for the foundations of information science: http://triplec.uti.at
From my POV, the most likely MySpace murderer is the Attorneys General. They've already forced a year of anti-predator development, forcing the MySpace engineers to not do any meaningful development. The >50 piece of legislation against MySpace put them at tremendous risk, primarily the Connecticut legislation that would require formalized parental permission and unbreakable age verification (with a cost of $5K per account per day of noncompliance). While there are librarians and others who are going after DOPA and S49, i know no one going after all of the state legislation that would nearly destroy social tech development. One thing to remember in looking at the cycles of startups... regardless of what the founders want, when they take VC, they lose a lot of control, including much control over sellouts. There's a lot of economic challenges in the business cycles behind startups. Another huge issue is that public corporations are forced to grow grow grow for Wall Street purposes. (See my "Incantations for Muggles" talk.) This means that companies like Facebook are forced to grow beyond comfortable levels. On Apr 21, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Hugemusic wrote:
Also, there's the very real prospect that commercial involvement will destroy the very fabric of many Web 2.0 efforts. I'm still sure (but less so than I was) that Murdoch is going to destroy MySapce in spite of his own best efforts. He's nearly done it already and it was only the founders who saved him. Time will tell.
a cost of $5K per account per day of noncompliance). While there are librarians and others who are going after DOPA and S49, i know no one going after all of the state legislation that would nearly destroy social tech development.
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." --John Gilmore (EFF). This seems likely to continue to be the case... social software notwithstanding. --e
On 4/22/07, elw@stderr.org <elw@stderr.org> wrote:
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." --John Gilmore (EFF).
I fail to see how this is applicable in this instance. No, the state laws danah mentioned will not shut down websites and services. However, they will still do significant damage in those states. Worse, that damage will disproportionately affect a particular sector of those states' populations: those dependent on public libraries and schools for Internet access. This is a well-rehearsed and familiar discussion for many of us. Given our collective familiarity with, interest in, and concerns about the social impact of the Internet, it strikes me as a bit callous to rely on the (unproven? unprovable?) idea that such regulation will not affect *me* since the Net will just "route around the damage." Kevin
--- Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/22/07, elw@stderr.org <elw@stderr.org> wrote:
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and
routes around it." --John Gilmore (EFF).
I fail to see how this is applicable in this instance. No, the state laws danah mentioned will not shut down websites and services.....
There is another cliche by Volohk (sp). Borders are still useful; they tell us where the folks with the guns are. As giddy as early cyberlibertarians were that the Net was not regulatable, the guys with the guns (law enforcement) have managed to enact any number of laws that (somewhat) effectively regulate the 'Net. DMCA. 911 Obligations for VoIP. CALEA. COPPA. .... The ability to route around failure assumes Baran's distributed network design. As networks consolidate and become less distributed, the ability to reroute is restrained. If the local network, for example, where the end user has a choice of only one network (or can go to a second network but with high switching costs) chooses to enforce regulation (their own or a states), the end user will have difficulty routing around the "failure." =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Cybertelecom :: Federal Internet Law & Policy www.cybertelecom.org Washington hOCKEY Wiki wockey.stikipad.com News Tryouts Clubs Leagues Pickup Rinks Info
participants (11)
-
Alex Halavais -
Alexis Turner -
Christian Fuchs -
danah boyd -
elw＠stderr.org -
Hugemusic -
Kevin Guidry -
Kurt Luther -
Lane DeNicola -
Neil Randall -
Robert Cannon