One of the most interesting points I observed in today’s lecture was that regarding Web 2.0 – the ‘read-write-web’. I’ve heard the term Web 2.0 used many times, but never really understood its significance, admittedly I am still slightly confused but I am slowly getting my head around it.
It appears I am not alone though. In 2005, Tim O’Reilly noted that there was disagreement about what Web 2.0 meant. Some saw it as a futile marketing buzzword, with others accepting it as “the new conventional wisdom” (O'Reilly, 2005). Either way, it was getting a lot of attention, with over 9.5 million citations in Google within a year and a half of the concept being born.
I think Adam summed it up quite succinctly, and simply, in the lecture. He explained the read-write-web as being a version of the Internet where average people can contribute, whereas Web 1.0, or the read-only web, had the user playing more of a passive role, as the name suggests. Adam also mentioned that “old media”, such as the recording industry, book publishers etc, would prefer the internet to remain read-only, but don’t you think it is naive of them to think that way? I can understand the threat they feel from the evolving and interactive nature of Web 2.0 and the loss of control they feel, but seeing as it has taken hold shouldn’t they find a way to embrace it and make it work for them? Makes sense to me..
References
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Retrieved January 22, 2010, from O'Reilly: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
No comments:
Post a Comment