Web 2.0

Today we did a review, and update, of digital media convergence. The discussion, which covered ideas by Henry Jenkins (participatory culture, the Black Box Fallacy), left us at the doorstep of Web 2.0. In our quest to understand the Big Picture of interactivity, participatory culture has to be addressed, and to do that one needs to spend some time understanding this thing called Web 2.0.

A good start point is this widely-viewed video by Professor Mike Wesch of Kansas State University. Described as “Web 2.0 in under five minutes,” the video demonstrates the Internet’s evolution from a source of services to a platform for a wide variety of content and communities. Please watch the video below, then find another video or explanation of Web 2.0 online and post the link. Tell us what you understand Web 2.0 to be, based on your viewing of these materials. Why is it relevant to our study of interactive media?

NOTE WHAT HAS ALREADY POSTED HERE BY OTHER STUDENTS AND SEEK OUT DIFFERENT MATERIAL. It’ll be a richer conversation if you are coming at it from different vantage points.


7 Responses to “Web 2.0”

  1. Lauren Kelly Says:

    Web 2.0 Video

    This video demonstrates how Web 2.0 essentially causes all the barriers of broadcast to drop. It allows anyone with a voice to get their message out there to the global audience. For virtually no cost, anyone is able to communicate with anyone else around the world.

    The concept of Web 2.0 is so prevalent to our study of interactive media because presently, the social trend is to participate in every aspect of culture. As we learned today, the viral quality of a releasing a message on a blog or a homemade youtube video seems more affective than a large corporate advertisement on CBS. It seems as though everyone has the ability to show their home movies to the world with youtube or have anyone from around the world post on your personal blog. The concept of Web 2.0 makes it simple to connect with other people around the world.

  2. Eryn Gradwell Says:

    Based on my viewing of the “The Machine is Us/ing Us” video and the video that I am about to post, I have come to a conclusion that Web 2.0 is an innovation on the Web that allows users to post material rather than companies, news stations, etc. It is almost like a practice of new ways that humans can use their civil liberties and share their thoughts without necessarily leaving their home. Anybody is now capable of sharing knowledge with others through Web 2.0, and it made way for myspace, flickr, facebook, kazaa, and other file sharing sites.

    The success of Web 2.0 can also be linked to Henry Jenkin’s podcast. In his podcast, he stated that amateur video and amateur posts have a sense of validity to them. For instance, I would much rather hear a movie review from a 19-year-old college student’s viewpoint than some old geezer of a professional that has been reviewing movies for years. With amateur video and sharing, there is access to plenty more news feeds, pictures, videos, etc.

    In the video I’m posting, simply called “Web 2.0,” it explains the idea that users contribute to the professionals in a great way. During a huge subway incident, a citizen took a picture of the incident with the camera on his phone. He shared it with CNN, and the picture was immediately aired on TV, printed in newspapers, and published on Web sites. Now it seems like professionals and amateurs must work together to ensure the flow of media.

    The video of Web 2.0 suggests that this innovative technology is not necessarily a media change, but in fact a societal change. Nobody knows everything, but everybody knows some things. What’s known by any given member can now be available to the group as a whole on a moment’s notice.

    Web 2.0

  3. Hillary Stoker Says:

    I have watched the video and read wikipedia as well as Tim O’Reilly’s article describing web 2.0 and for what I understand web 2.0 is just an update of the internet we use now. According to O’Reilly web 2.0 is something companies will publish to provide user friendly online services. He gives seven claims as to what web 2.0 should be saying “The core competencies of Web 2.0 companies are as follows:

    • 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.” It is all in technical talk and I am still a little unsure exactly how to define web 2.0. However a blogger left a comment on O’Reilly’s site that kind of helped me understand web 2.0 a little better; he said “Web 2.0 is a knowledge-oriented environment where human interaction generates content that is published, managed and used through network applications in a service oriented architecture”.

    Since we are talking about interactive media in present terms it only makes sense to discuss web 2.0. Currently being integrated into our everyday technology web 2.0 is changing the way people interact with machines. Services such as the internet and cell phones will/are being effected by web 2.0 changing technology that most people have become accustomed to.


  4. Janus Rogerson Says:

    Honestly even after reading several analysis of what Web 2.0 is, it is still hard for me to understand. Maybe it is because sometimes the writers, through no fault of their own, get sucked into using technical jargon that the average person can’t understand. The simple reasoning as to why they do this is because there is no simple way to explain it. The only thing that I do understand about Web 2.0 is that it will be a “platform” from which all users will be able to interject their thoughts and ideas about a subject. Information given by the users will be linked together so that others can learn from it and continue to add to the chain. One of the reasons Web 2.0 is relevant to our studies is because it is basically the fulfillment of Vannevar Bush’s concept of the “memex.” Up till now most of the functions of the “memex” have been served by the web but we have been lacking the real ability to contribute our own thoughts and attach them as a thread on a subject. With Web 2.0 that is no longer an issue because strings of information with our thoughts will be consumed all over the world and anyone who desires to do so can tag their thoughts onto the string to once again be read by others. We (internet users) will become participants and we will be learning information through each other.
    While I still agree that the concept of Web 2.0 is a little vague there is an article I read by Tim O’Reilly, the creator of the term “Web 2.0” that might help you to understand what it is. Below is the link to the article.

    “What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software”

  5. Shenee Howard Says:

    Okay, I decided to write this without reading everyone else’s because I am easily tainted by ideas. I watched a couple of videos about web 2.0. I am not sure if I can create a general definition for web 2.0 because everyone has a different opinion about it.
    In my opinion, Web 2.0 = community. All of the videos I watched expressed this new web development as something that allows the common man to have a instrumental role in creating what the internet is. All the sites mentioned allows users to publish their own content and create their own websites. In one of the videos I watched, the narrator gave examples of websites that are 1.0 and 2.0. The example I understood the most dealt with the kodak site and the flickr website. While kodak will take your pictures and print them out for you, on flickr you can take your pictures and share them with anyone around the world and anyone can print those pictures. The wall between internet designers / everyone else is being destroyed. I think that this new type of internet is actually reverting back to what the original internet pioneers wanted. The internet has become more of a democracy. The online community isn’t just a community where “nerds” can feel like they can belong to something but a viable way to communicate. Corporations, presidential candidates, newspapers and magazines have all realized the value of these online communities and everything is beginning to converge. I am watching Bravo right now and the male model is telling to me to go online and discuss with fellow fans of this male model how I feel about the show.I can also read his blog and tell him how we will be married soon.
    I am tempted to do it.


  6. I found two links that I feel show what web 2.0 is. The first is more of an abstract joke but does have a point. The second is highly informative, but very cut and dry. It seems the best way web 2.0 can be described is a means of making the internet more interactive and customizable to each individual user. Using XML or RSS feeds users can make the internet how they want, giving updates on favorite sites in a simple fashion. Using other elements such as blogs, YouTube, or even social utilities such as Facebook an individual’s voice can get out to the internet making their web identity more important and even more real to others. Another important aspect of web 2.0 are wikis which allow for fast and frequently updated information on almost any topic in some cases a user could move from a band, to an album, and even to a specific song to find exactly what they are searching for.

    Link 1:

    Link 2:

  7. Bethany Swanson Says:

    I really like how Shenee put it: “The wall between internet designers and everyone else is being destroyed.” We are the internet designers. I think that’s the main point behind Mike Wesch’s video, that individuals are becoming more and more active in creating/producing content on the internet.

    I also read O’Reilly’s page defining Web 2.0 and found it interesting his comparisons or the progressions, really, between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. I found it compelling that instead of saying distinctly that was then and this is now, he offered a greater continuum. He used arrows between 1.0 and 2.0 because in reality, convergence, the changing between the two is not so much a point by point occurrence but a gradual change over time.

    According to O’Reilly’s page, there are over 9.5 million Google citations for Web 2.0, many of which differ on whether it is an actual phenomenon or simply a buzz word. I’m not really one to pass judgment, I don’t really understand where the rhetoric stops and where the actuality begins. After reading Wired Magazine’s article Are You Ready for Web 2.0 about the Web 2.0 conference and the idea itself, I was struck by the quote by founder Tim O’Reilly that Web 2.0 is an “architecture of participation.” I think this is so incredibly relevant to what we’ve been talking about in terms of having the interface or tools to be interactive and participate in this growing world of convergence. Web 2.0 seems to be what the “internet giants” are claiming is the future of the internet. Ross Mayfield, CEO of SocialText said it best, I think:

    “Web 1.0 was commerce. Web 2.0 is people.” Brilliant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: