Sat, 5 Nov 2005 23:02 UTC
I’ve been giving a lot of thought to Web 2.0 lately. Specifically, I’ve been thinking about tagging and collective ownership (and sharing) of information. While these aren’t necessarily Web 2.0 in and of themselves—indeed, Web 2.0 is merely (depending on your thought-leader of choice) the notion of the Web as a platform—I think they are becoming integral parts of the concept, and I think they compliment one another.
Tagging helps to organize (describe) information in a way in which it is easy for someone other than the “tagger” to find relevant data. There is no obfuscated taxonomy or nomenclature that one must figure out (like with most category- and folder-based systems), and, with the way most tag-based applications now work (i.e. del.icio.us, Flickr), others may add their own tags, so the overall value of the description increases, thus making it easier to find. Flickr even assigns a ranking to this value (which also adds in other attributes such as number of views, etc.) so you can find your “most interesting” photos. All of this works together, making it easier to share information.
So, you can see that I’ve been giving a great deal of thought to this, so it’s no surprise that Web 2.0 was the first thing that sprung to mind when I broke open my fortune cookie tonight after dinner. This was the fortune:
Doing little things well is a step towards doing big things better.
If Web 2.0 has a motto, then this is it. A typical Web 2.0 application is one that picks one thing and does it well. Then, it provides (or should) an open API for others to share in the information available from the one thing done well. As more and more of these applications pop up, there will be mounds and mounds—indeed, there already are—of rich data for all to share. This is the platform. This is the “big thing” that is made better by the “little things” of Web 2.0.
3 Comments »
Permalink
Tags: open-information, tagging, web-2.0
Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:18 UTC
By now, you’ve probably heard of the latest browser craze known as Flock. I call it a craze, and really it is just that; the hype for this browser came when it was announced and long before there was any code or builds to view. It seems that this kind of hype occurs all too often these days, and I even find myself wrapped up in it occasionally. And why not? It feels good to know that the industry wheels are churning again, that there’s money in the air—or, at least, the hint of it, anyway.
But is there anything to this hype? Is there anything to Flock, to Web 2.0, to AJAX, to blogging, podcasting, tagging? Truthfully, I think the jury’s still out on this. Indeed, beyond the nifty buzzword, I see what Web 2.0 promises. It represents a mounting paradigm shift in the way we view and treat information . . . but I think it’s way ahead of its time.
Web 2.0, as I understand it, not only embodies the Web as a platform, but it philosophically seems to represent an opening up of information and the free share and exchange of ideas. This almost smacks of Gene Roddenberry’s futuristic vision of Star Trek: The Next Generation. I’m not sure that we’re culturally ready for such an open (some might say “Socialistic”) approach to information.
The governments of our world are undergoing tremendous growing pains at this point in history with regard to information and intellectual property. On the one hand, we see the traditionalists and the corporations who wish to maintain a firm grasp on IP, copyright, and patents. Why shouldn’t they? These modes of protection have brought them to where they are and have made them very profitable. On the other hand are the neo-copyrightists who philosophically advocate for open information and free exchange of ideas. In the middle is a government trying to appease both sides, but, more often than not, the traditionalists have the money and, thus, the power of influence.
Can the ideals of Web 2.0 survive in this environment? I think the technology is definitely there. We can create extremely usable Web sites for the masses, and more and more, people are buying computers primarily for the business of being online—and not because of software. Indeed, the software is now online for many things, and the computer is a client to reach it. Yet, therein lies the problem: information is everywhere. Technology is forcing us to rethink our traditional approaches to information and IP. Traditionally, he who holds the information wields the most power and control. With Web 2.0, everyone collectively holds the information.
So, I followed along that lengthy tangent to come back to this: is Web 2.0 just early 21st century marketing hype, and is Flock simply riding the craze? Or could Web 2.0 represent a growing shift in cultural values—on a global scale?
There’s no doubt that Flock, at this point, is merely riding the Web 2.0 wave. After all, it’s really just Firefox with some added features that don’t particularly impress me. We’ll just have to wait and see what comes of it as it moves beyond the “Developer Preview” stages into alpha and beta versions.
As for Web 2.0—only time will tell whether it represents real social change or just good marketing.
For more on Flock, read Jim Rapoza’s “Flock Can’t Fly Yet” blog post.
3 Comments »
Permalink
Tags: browsers, flock, open-information, web-2.0
