Web 2.0 > web 1.0

Web 2.0 is defined as an intersection of web application features that facilitate participatory information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media as creators of user-generated content in a online community, in contrast to websites where users are limited to the passive viewing of content that was created for them. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups and folksonomies.

The term is associated with Tim O’Reilly because of the O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004. Although the term speaks of  a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specification, but rather to increasing changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the Web.

Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just gain information. By increasing what was already possible in Web 1.0, they provide the user with more user-interface, software and storage facilities, all through their browser. This has been called “Network as platform” computing. Users can provide the data that is on a Web 2.0 site and exercise some control over that very data. These sites may have an architecture of participation that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it. Some experts have made the case that cloud computing is a form of Web 2.0 because cloud computing is basicly an implication of computing on the Internet.

The Web 2.0 offers all users the same freedom to contribute. While this opens the possibility for rational debate and collaboration, it also opens the possibility for “spamming” and “trolling” by less rational users. The impossibility of excluding group members who don’t contribute to the provision of goods from sharing profits gives rise to the possibility that rational members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and free load on the contribution of others.This requires what is sometimes called radical trust by the management or creator of the website. According to Best, the characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, web standards and scalability. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom and collective intelligence by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0.

A very great example of a Web 2.0 website is wordpress and Ds106. WordPress it’s self is a blogging website that allows people to share and recieve knowledge, while having the capability to edit and post any array of things available out there. Ds106 is a free create website where you can post your own projects, create your own, and do already made projects available.

Advertisements

About Ingenous Dynamics

i got 99 problems, but swag aint one.

Posted on February 19, 2012, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. The free rider problem inherent in Web 2.0, like you said, is the lack of motivation for contribution. Even without specific mechanics that reward thoughtful contributors, there are still karmic forces at work. Some people feel such satisfaction from just posting something that might be read by others that they will contribute even in the absence of any explicit reward. And in such networks, what you tend to see are a handful of familiar super users and a crowd of lurkers. The super users are happy enough just doing what they do, which ultimately leads to the same kind of outcome that such contribution in real life social neighborhoods leads to, respect.

    You can witness this dynamic in many online forums. Those users who have dozens of icons on the left bar, 5000 posts, a member since 2001, and a signature about forum etiquette.

    The question is though, who’s to say that the community is best off with only natural contributors making the space? Unless the propensity to contribute is correlated nearly one to one with usefulness of contribution, then by statistical inference it is quite reasonable to assume that the community is not best off that way. Hence, there must be some sort of contribution incentive, just like some shooter games do with giving points for doing things that help the team, like healing, or giving ammo, being a driver, and not just killing enemies.

    The upvote/downvote system that Reddit uses is a pretty effective incentive for constructive contribution. Anecdotally, I usually put a great deal more effort into my Reddit posts than other sites, just because, for whatever reason, I have come to value the upvotes I receive from others. Flaming gets downvoted. Funny gets upvoted. Racism gets downvoted. Insightful tl/dr’s usually get upvoted pretty hard. And the same goes for comments. I think all it is, is a quantitative approach to respect and karma. I know that I’m unlikely to disagree with someone about science who has 10000 total upvotes, 1000 downvotes, and spends all his time in /r/askscience. But that 30up/100down guy is garbage.

    • Thanks for the information John. It is really appreciated. Your example of Reddit using a upvote/downvote system is a great example for constructive contribution. I am now considering making a Reddit account now, I’ve been getting sick or other website’s upvote/downvote system lately. Websites like youtube having such a system can go to waste, because of users who try to put down other user’s video blogs for almost no reason at all. Onca agina thank you for sharing your information, it is much appreciated.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: