Taking residence in virtual worlds | Australian IT: “Rather than be tied up with the web 2.0, which he believes has a specific look and collaborative function, Robertson is more concerned with web-enabling technology and providing access. ‘Web 2.0 normally implies two things. It’s based on online democracy and collaboration, and uses AJAX-style technology to give a heavy graphical user interface client feel, even though you’re still in a lightweight browser. ‘That’s the implication, but we’re doing things like data sovereignty and workplace democracy and taking that type of approach, which isn’t classical web 2.0 but still trying to meet the same objectives.'”
By allowing Google to track my web browsing, Google becomes a more effective knowledge management platform.
Jeff Jarvis sets out the case for people who contribute to a platform being rewarded for their contribution, possibly beyond just being able to conduct a free search. He says,
The thing that’s new about this new world is that we don’t just consume. In fact, the act of consumption is now an act of creation. There are so many examples. When I search on Google, I am finding stuff for me but when I click, I am adding to the wisdom of the crowd that makes Google more effective for every searcher who follows me.
While I’m not convinced that we should be sharing in Google’s ad revenue that they might pick up when I do a search and click on a paid link, Jarvis goes on to make the point that our individual actions create collective value.
When I consume content and want to save it on Del.icio.us or other such services, that’s an individual act. But the tags we create together yield amazing wisdom of the crowd that can be useful in helping people discover content, in organizing the web around topics again, in improving search results, and even in improving ad performance.
I contend that, power-users of sites such as Google, Flickr and YouTube aside, most people’s payoff from participation on a platform is better search, a chance at accidental fame, and faster access to information. At least that’s the payoff I’m happy with, but then again I may be too easily satisfied.
There are many who argue about the definition of web 2.0, but it was Tim O’reilly who claims to have come up with the terminology – and it’s stuck. More than just a simple definition, which would do the concept injustice, O’Reilly sets out a meme map that provides a visual clue of the complexity of the ways people and businesses are collaborating on the net.
There are several key components to what O’Reilly claims are the core of web 2.0. I’ll set these out as follows:
- The web as the platform. The days of packaged software is over – move what you do onto the web.
The race is on to own certain classes of core data: location, identity, calendaring of public events, product identifiers and namespaces.
- Harness collective intelligence. Sharing through wikis, blogs, and tagging makes us better and smarter both individually and collectively.
- End of software release cycles. The constant beta and learning from customer behaviour. Software is being constantly updated and improves with greater usage.
- Simple, light programming. Think RSS, loose coupled, and co-operating.
- Software above and beyond the device. Get your product onto any device – a computer, mobile phone, i-pod, fridge, skateboard – you name it.
- Create a rich user experience. Back in the day we had Word as a “rich” experience, but on a desktop. Now we can have the same experience on the web with Google Docs
Are You Ready for Web 2.0?: “Web 2.0, according to conference sponsor Tim O’Reilly, is an ‘architecture of participation’ — a constellation made up of links between web applications that rival desktop applications, the blog publishing revolution and self-service advertising. This architecture is based on social software where users generate content, rather than simply consume it, and on open programming interfaces that let developers add to a web service or get at data. It is an arena where the web rather than the desktop is the dominant platform, and organization appears spontaneously through the actions of the group, for example, in the creation of folksonomies created through tagging.”
The article went on to explain how there are many web 2.0 skeptics and show-cased some of the new software companies producing platforms providing new ways of mixing and compiling information so as to be more useful to users.
This blog (the one you’re reading now) only scored 13/66 using the Web 2.0 Validator.
How does your site stack up?