Now that I have your attention...
Web 1.0 V Web 2.0
“Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform” (O’Reilly as cited in Bruns, 2008)
Key difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0?
While Web1.0 was more “one way”, web 2.0 allows consumers to be more involved in creating, contributing, editing and sharing the content they were once only able to passively consume.
Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0
Web 1.0 was about reading, Web 2.0 is about writing
Web 1.0 was about companies, Web 2.0 is about communities
Web 1.0 was about client-server, Web 2.0 is about peer to peer
Web 1.0 was about HTML, Web 2.0 is about XML
Web 1.0 was about home pages, Web 2.0 is about blogs
Web 1.0 was about portals, Web 2.0 is about RSS
Web 1.0 was about taxonomy, Web 2.0 is about tags
Web 1.0 was about wires, Web 2.0 is about wireless
Web 1.0 was about owning, Web 2.0 is about sharing
Web 1.0 was about IPOs, Web 2.0 is about trade sales
Web 1.0 was about Netscape, Web 2.0 is about Google
Web 1.0 was about web forms, Web 2.0 is about web applications
Web 1.0 was about screen scraping, Web 2.0 is about APIs
Web 1.0 was about dialup, Web 2.0 is about broadband
Web 1.0 was about hardware costs, Web 2.0 is about bandwidth costs
(http://joedrumgoole.com/blog/2006/05/29/web-20-vs-web-10/)
Consumers who no longer merely consume, but interact with content are defined by Bruns (2008) as produsers as they are also producers of information and knowledge; their online usage is productive. Web 2.0 enables users around the world to contribute online in ways that web 1.0 did not allow for. While some encourage and support the produser trend, others are highly critical of the shift allowing consumers to participate more in the online environment. The role of produsers; the quality of their work and editing and the impact of this trend on businesses are some of the main issues surrounding web 2.0.
The quality of produser information is a debatable topic, with some claiming it to provide valuable information and alternate points of view while others condemn consumer input as lacking in credibility and value. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit and is a collaborative produser effort. According to Wikipedia (2008) itself, at present the site has 2,339,077 articles just in English, while the Britannica has approximately 85,000 articles and Encarta contains around 630,000 articles. This illustrates the dedication of produsers to contribute and enhance content, some of which may have been ignored and overlooked by traditional information sources. Some critics however mock the value of user participation and one has labelled Wikipedia as “no more reliable than the output of a millions monkeys banging away at their typewriters” (Keen as cited in Levy, 2007). Others such as Bruns (2008) dispute this view and argue that sites like Wikipedia in regards to quality, are matching such publications as the Encyclopedia Britannica as the quality of online content is gradually improved as large communities of participants make small changes to already existing information.
Criticism of user participation and produser content in regards to quality may be used to disguise a deeper fear that a power shift is occurring between consumers and business, companies and authoritative information sources. For example, traditional print media sources have been responsible for providing the community with news for some time and have had the ability to influence and dictate public opinion. Traditionally, journalists would collect information and write up reports, editors would then review their work and news would get published accordingly. Now, users themselves can create, edit and alter information online. According to Saunders (2007) some reasons as to why people are engaging in and with user created content is as it provides and allows for alternate news and views that are ignored or silenced in mainstream media to be voiced and pushes boundaries of debate. Whereas once traditional news media outlets were in a position of high power, with the ability to tell consumers what to think about, what is important and what the facts are, produser content is threatening this authority. For traditional new sources and professional journalists, “for the first time, its hegemony as gatekeeper of news is threatened by not just new technology and competitors but by the audience it serves" (Bowman & Willis, 2005).
According to Bruns (2008), commercial adaptation to produsage will aid in accelerating the produsage trend whilst maintaining industry stability, whereas as negative efforts to undermine produsage may too accelerate the trend. I think that traditional news and information sources must acknowledge and react to produsage and participatory culture and this shift from passive to active consumers, as the situation the music industry is now in (eg. Music piracy and diminishing need for “middle men” between consumers and artists) is an example of how dangerous ignoring consumer trends and activities can be.
Bowman, S. ,& Willis, W. (2005). The future is here, but do news media companies see it? 59 (10), 6-10. Cambridge:Nieman Reports. Retrieved 14 September, 2007, from ProQuest Database.
Bruns, A. (2008). Introduction. Blogs , Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. (Chapter 1). Retrieved April 19, 2008, from http://produsage.org/files/Produsage%20-%20Introduction.pdf
Bruns, A. (2008). Produsage:Towards a broader framework for user-led creation. Retrieved April 19, 2008 , from http://produsage.org/files/Produsage%20(Creativity%20and%20Cognition%202007).pdf
Bruns, A (2008). The future is user-led:The path towards widespread produsage.Retrieved April 19, 2008, from http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf
Levy, S (2007).Invasion of the web amateurs. Newsweek. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17661199/site/newsweek
Saunders, B. (2007). Blogging, citizen journalism and web 2.0. The Kids Just Don’t Read Newspapers No More Part 2. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. [Lecture:KCB102 Media & Society: From the Printing Press to the Internet]
2 comments:
Dear Jade,
In addition to your blog entry on the first and second generations of web, web 1.0 is fairly one-sided in the collation of information online and offline, whereas web 2.0 is all about collaborating and produsage (Bruns 2007; Creamer 2008, 1). Bruns (2007, 1) argues, “user-led content creation in this new model harnesses the collected, collective intelligence of all participants, and manages— though in some cases better than in others—to direct their contributions to where they are best able to make a positive impact.” Collaboration and produsage is a feature of web 2.0 and will continue to be a prominent feature of web 3.0 in the future.
A key aspect of web 2.0 is that it guides in an era of shared knowledge with no distinction between amateur, professional, consumer or expert (Cong and Du 2007, 8). This second generation primarily focuses on exploring online information and collaborative technologies such as blogs, wikis and social networking (Cong and Du 2007, 7; O’Reilly 2006). It is the evolution of the Internet into a place for communities of people to share exciting experiences, creative ideas, music, video and pictures (Cong and Du 2007, 8). "The World Wide Web is being used as a platform to collaborate and share information in many new ways…the benefits of this network effect grow even more powerful when more people use them," (Cong and Du 2007, 8; O’Reilly 2006).
One piece of constructive criticism is that you should have personally summarised and explored the topic in greater detail, instead of merely copying and pasting a brief extract from another author.
References:
Bruns, A. 2007. Chapter 1: Introduction: Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. http://produsage.org/files/Produsage%20-%20Introduction.pdf (accessed 14 April 2008).
Creamer, M. 2008. It's web 3.0, and someone else's content is king. Advertising Age, 79 (15): 1-2.
Cong, Y. and Du, H. 2007. Welcome to the World of Web 2.0. The CPA Journal 77 (5): 6-9.
O’Reilly, T. 2006. Web 2.0 compact definition: Trying again. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web_20_compact.html (accessed 12 April 2008).
To comment on your discussion of the quality of produser information, I think it is becoming more and more difficult for us to distinguish credible information and resources. While Bruns has supported the credibility of the Wikipedia, I am yet to find another subject at university in which I would feel comfortable using it as a reliable source. Most subjects condemn using it as a reference for the fact that anyone can edit it and it encourages lazy, sloppy research.
While this criticism of the Wikipedia might be preached in university, it is extremely contradictory and amusing that the Vice Chancellor of Griffith University, Ian O’Connor has recently plagiarised sentences off the Wikipedia in an opinion article published in the Australian! For the full story check out this link:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23608817-16123,00.html
Post a Comment