intimidation factor 2.0 September 18, 2009

“An introduction to Visual Culture” by Nicholas Mirzoeff was originally published in 1999 and most recently reprinted in 2006.  The Introduction -What is Visual Culture – Spews out sentences offering snapshots of insight such as, “Modern day life takes place onscreen.” Although at the time Mirzoeff was referring to the television screen, an LCD computer monitor is now equally as fitting.

In the early days of computer development, when desktops referred to the tangible tops of desks and computer languages like Pascal and ASCII were textual, the computer was thought of as an intimidating piece of technology. Now, computers are more affordable and owning one, which is now used without limitations, is deemed the social “norm” in the United States. But still, computers and the increasingly interactive Internet can be alarmingly intimidating. A new element warding off the lazy and bamboozling my elders is the idea of Web 2.0 and subsequently, as some may argue, the more important and pressing idea of Web 3.0. It seems as though offering up any definition regarding the buzz-worthy and ambiguous Web 2.0 ends short in some kind of verbal/textual argument seemingly structured to conclude in a tie, a Cats game. To tell you the truth, i find it all a little intimidating.

A stew of vocabulary spoils even the most simplistic definitions of the term/buzzword/phrase Web 2.0. So instead, let me offer an example in a micro, diet sized proportion showing what it means to live with Web 2.0 for me. Just last week, my 60-something year-old mother commented on my Facebook Wall in response to an upload I made on Flickr, and immediately proceeded to call my Iphone asking if I received her text. Although I had not received a text message from her, my Iphone did receive an email from Facebook explaining my Mom’s activity on my wall. This is a perfect example of two distinct things: first, the abundance and availability and speed of applications and social networking sites currently waiting for the pecking index fingers of all ages. And secondly, just because this technology is readily available doesn’t mean all of us (or anyone) using it has a clue about what we are doing.

With Web 2.0 I am able to watch home videos of strangers pull pranks on one another. I am able to upload photos instantly from my Iphone to the digital warehouse of Flickr and I’m even able to post a tweet about it. With Web 2.0 one of the main focuses is bringing the experience from the desktop into the browser and actively pulling the user into the application without needing a tutor. Literally, with Web 2.0 anyone can just click, point, drag and figure it out….or so they think. Personally, i feel a lot of content could be lost in this shuffle.

As a writer I am hesitant to embrace the boom of Internet writing. Studying journalism as an undergrad taught me to turn my nose up at the Web and yeah, i still have issues believing the legitimacy of “writers” on the Web. I still default to seeing the Web as a source of escapism entertainment instead of a portal to find news or participate in community. And although I’ve seen proof of this online, with my very own eyes, i can’t help but argue that it isn’t entirely organic. I understand the importance of contributing to forums and writing on blogs, and I acknowledge the vast Web space available for the self-promotion of anything I write. But call me old school because I want my words to be bound and displayed on a bookshelf, not forgotten about in a digital, audio-book Itunes library. I fear that the pace of evolution is too fast and filled with flashing graphic distractions. I am intimidated by how easily narratives can be misrepresented or misinterpreted . I am learning that I will have to embrace the inter connectivity of Web 2.0 to advance as a writer and although I am willing to grow with it, I am really cheering for print not to lose the battle just yet.

Reading and Writing in the World of Web 2.0 September 17, 2009

Writing on the web is not a new phenomenon—people have been doing it since the Internet boom of the 90s. However, it wasn’t until the mid-2000s that people were able to truly interact and connect with others through the web. The seemingly endless applications, sites, and platforms through which people can connect these days have created a significant shift in the way everyone uses the Internet. This shift has been coined Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 refers to the applications and platforms, such as Flickr, blogs, and social networking sites, that have changed the way we interact with the Internet. We are no longer users of the Internet, but we are creators as well. Everyday people create new sites, blogs, videos, songs, and links and share them with the world. In 2006, TIME magazine’s Person of the Year was you. They elected you for “seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game,” (www.time.com/time/magazine). Before Web 2.0, this election would not have been possible.

Web 2.0 has not only dramatically changed the way we interact, it has also dramatically changed the way we read and write.  Gone are the days when children learn to read and write using only books, a pen, and some paper. Starting at kindergarten, children are using computers in many classrooms. The skills and strategies that they learn from their teachers are reinforced with educational websites and e-tools. By interacting with computers and the web at such an early age, these children are learning to read in a different way than anyone my age did. They can download books online and read e-book versions of their texts in school. They also reinforce their skills outside of the classroom—every time they text, read a blog, type a web address, or use a social networking site. The same is true of adults. In fact, you can’t use the Internet if you don’t have basic reading and writing skills. The prospect of using the Internet might actually be an incentive for some people to learn to read and write.

The applications and platforms that make up Web 2.0 open up a world of possibilities for people, but they also raise a lot of questions. Web 2.0 is forcing us to rethink copyright laws, privacy laws, and ethics. Our social rhetoric is changing before our eyes, and a new language is being developed every day.I admittedly have been reluctant to change the form of narrative that I use. I still prefer hard copy books over e-books and I would rather read a letter than read someone’s Facebook wall. However, I am not so reluctant that I refuse to change my narrative. What I don’t like is the feeling that I have to change my narrative. I don’t like to think that people my age will stop responding to the old forms of communication and narration.  The web is constantly changing and evolving, and it is forcing us to do the same—it is forcing me to do the same.

Web 2.0 for Writers September 16, 2009

The term Web 2.0 is multifaceted.  Not only does it refer to new tools and technologies on the web, but also a phase in the evolution of the internet that we are currently experiencing.  Web 2.0, once considered experimental, is now mainstream.  This has a strong affect on writers as we adapt to these new technologies and move texts into the digital space.  Web 2.0 can be defined as the shift towards an open platform, a focus on relationships and community, and on users that are unique participants in the process.

Web 2.0 is open; it is not restrictive and static like traditional software.  Applications, systems, and programs can bind together and information integrates—enabling users to see the whole picture, instead of just bits and pieces.  An open, integrated platform for information sharing creates new power and possibility for all users, including writers.

Web 2.0 creates a community, where interaction, communication, connection, and collaboration flourish.  This new media introduces, connects, and reunites people at both personal and business levels.  It allows producers to interact with consumers, to eventually create better products, and for authors to connect with readers and reviewers, to discuss and analyze texts.  Additionally, these communities are crossing borders and cultures, opening up a new world of exchange.

A final feature of Web 2.0 is that users participate in the process.  We become prosumers instead of consumers —we author, review, collaborate, and even create the interfaces for our information.  This idea of user-generated content and two-way data exchange creates a more open sharing of ideas, experiences, and perspectives.  Writing, which was once a solitary process, becomes collaborative and dynamic on the web.

With Web 2.0, writers can connect with readers, along with other writers and texts, in new, exciting ways.  We gain new ideas and insights that could enhance our work.  Writing becomes more collaborative, in the moment, and evolving according to current experiences and perspectives of the audience and time.  The open platform, community, and two-way exchange of Web 2.0 create a very dynamic environment for the creation of digital narratives.  Digitally, writers can connect the ideas and experiences in their narratives to more people—possibly in a more touching, personal way then by analogue.

To Web 2.0 … And Beyond! September 16, 2009

The Internet, or World Wide Web, is an ever-growing, ever-changing, ever-evolving medium in which the masses strive to not only learn from and about it, but to also become a part of it. Thanks to the emergence of social networking giants such as Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and LinkedIn within the last five or so years, anyone with a computer, phone and an Internet connection can tap into the new constructs that the Web 2.0 movement has created. As the ideas and coding flow, we are taken along for the ride.

The term “Web 2.0″ has become a 21st century buzzword; an attempt to bring a mish-mash of emerging technologies together under some type of hip and edgy banner. Before, memoirs were put to paper (remember paper?), then transcribed onto a digital sheet which was then made into a book. Now, blogs on the ‘Net are followed en masse, which then turn into books, which then turn into movies (ie: “Julie and Julia”) and eBooks readily available for download. This can all be done with the pointing of a cursor and the click of a mouse. The world now lives for instant gratification, which Web 2.0 provides.

While my post may seem to be a little on the gruff side, I do find all of these new technologies to be quite fascinating, if not a little disconcerting. So many people in today’s society (and I am one of them) now feel the need to categorize every detail of their lives for friends and strangers to see. Although, I am personally creeped out by random people reading my Facebook and Twitter, so I have everything set to private. We can now install Torrents (peer-to-peer filesharing) to procure movies and music whereas before, nobody would think twice about buying a CD or DVD from the store. I still have VHS and cassette tapes, although they’re buried somewhere in my basement back home.

There will come a time when Web 2.0 becomes Web 3.0 and beyond, and with this change will come new possibilities for horizons to be broadened even more. While books and magazines in print may never become obsolete, the Internet boom is not something that looks to ever end. With new developments, both writers and publishers will need to adapt and grow with them, and the opportunities will continue to be limitless.

In the Web of 2.0 September 16, 2009

In the 1930’s, Vannear Bush had an idea of a “device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility.”  His essay, “As We May Think” delved into the concept of “associative trails” that would link common thoughts and themes together so that when someone would go to use a Memex, they could follow the trail to retrieve additional information.  If one chose, they could let others use their personal Memex machine and link their own associations to another’s store of information.  Even though this device was never seen into production, Bush’s was conceptualizing was the internet and hypertext.

One of the flaws of the Memex was that the associative trails could not be widely published.  These trails would stay on the deskbound device.  The invention of ARPANET and sequentially, the internet as we know it today, allows users to publish “associative trails” through hyperlinking, tagging, bookmarking, “liking,” sharing, and all the other ways Web 2.0 can help tell the story of the human race at large. At the end of this video, the author notes “Web 2.0 is not just linking information… Web 2.0 is linking people.”

When comment or “like” someone else’s post on a social networking site, blog, or even an NPR story, I am telling everyone that “this means something to me; this is part of who I am.”  I am leaving a part of my personal narrative.  Of course, Web 2.0 could not work without the technology supporting it, but likewise, the narratives we are accessing in the digital age rely on understanding the analog narratives and their mediums that have come before.  Many of us run to the computer to gather more information on something we have heard on the radio or find the background story of a film and its actors.  The narrative of stories, fictional or not, is obviously no longer linear but do I think that the traditional narrative is still and it is integral that we continue to understand both to understand the world at large. Perhaps Web 3.0 is how we access the network of communication and information in both digital and analog forms?

Public Narrative in Web 2.0 September 16, 2009

Web 2.0 refers to the number of channels and avenues through which human beings can interact on the world wide web and to the degree those human beings shape the web technology they use.

The term itself expands on Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s original concept of the World Wide Web: technology that allows us to bridge gaps and communicate with people all over the world on a variety of subjects. According to Bryan Alexander in his article “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?” ‘few can agree on even the general outlines of Web 2.0. It is about no single new development. Moreover, the term is often applied to a heterogeneous mix of relatively familiar and also very emergent technologies.’

Those technologies include the development and popularization of blogging communities like wordpress, LiveJournal and Blogspot and fast updating social network sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter. Through these sites, users are able to communicate with other users by posting comments, talking via messenger programs, linking to other users posts.

What the blogging and social networking sites also do for the user is create a space for them to build on and shape their public profile and narrative. The prevalence of social networking has also led to a heightened consciousness of appearance and presentation. A person has the ability to shape the public perception of them not just by what they write about, but by their choice of blog design, which articles they link to through Facebook, and how they update their status on Twitter. We’ve become aware of what we should and should not share, depending on who might see it. According to Alexander Vanselsas in his piece “On diminishing network effects in web 2.0, social media and human limitations:”

“I feel there is an underlying need for interaction that drives current web development. Any respectable web 2.0 service is based upon the premise that we all want to share anything with the rest of the world. We have life streams (what am I doing), news feeds (what am I reading), traveling plans (where am I going), shopping behavior (what am I buying), localization (where am I now), fan sites (who am I following). Even when you are not on-line, people that follow you are likely to know exactly what you are doing. Sharing alone isn’t good enough anymore. Now we need to discuss it as well.”

People on social networking sites are then in a position to become writers of a sort — by being given the tools to write their “life story” online and to pick and choose who can view what material and information they post. That said, I’m not certain how many people actually do self-censor their online narrative.

Web 2.0 Shmoo.0 September 15, 2009

Since the government (www.usa.gov/webcontent/technology/other_tech.shtml) is always right, allow me to begin here:

Social Media and Web 2.0 are umbrella terms that define the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and content creation.

The most interesting thing about the concept of Web 2.0 is the debate over whether it even exists (mostly yes), whether it is profitable (not exactly), and what it is (therein lies the question).

Mea culpa: I may have mislead you.  It’s not so much that Web 2.0 may or may not exist (CNN/Fortune even says that it’s o-v-e-r, but I’ll get to that later) but if its meaningful or useful as a term at all.  After expounding on its theoretical definition, “Web 2.0 means using the web the way it’s meant to be used,” Paul Graham (www.paulgraham.com) makes it clear that he doesn’t necessarily buy into the hype.  In fact (and I tend to agree…)

The fact that Google is a ‘Web 2.0′ company shows that, while meaningful, the term is also rather bogus.  It’s like the word “allopathic.”  It just means doing things right, and it’s a bad sign when you have a special word for that.

Web 2.0 cuts out the middle man of yore, allowing otherwise unrelated persons to meet and interact, discuss and share opinions, and close what may be the smallest gaps in the already small world we live in.  Instead of picking up and paying for a newspaper (or, heck, an online subscription to the New York Times), Web 2.0 allows the public/consumer/insert condescending title for regular person here to be the writer, editor, and anchorperson of their own 24-hour news network.  I can’t say that this is always the best thing (there is a reason that people generally go to school before reaching their dreams of becoming the next Wolf Blitzer…I sort of just wanted an excuse to say his name).  And whether or not you agree with Dr. Graham, his annotated guide to what makes Web 2.0, well, 2.0, is pretty interesting: www.paulgraham.com/web20.html.

Since this is the good ol’ US of A and nothing is anything without money coming into the framework, can we move on to Web 3.0 if the profiteers of the second generation still aren’t exactly rolling in the dough like Scrooge McDuck? For example, MySpace probably made something like $600M last year which is certainly not an amount I’d scoff at, but it falls a few standard deviations below the $1B sales target its parent organization, New Corp, had for it (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/technology/hempel_threepointo.fortune.index/htm).  Newer companies like MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter had no business model from the get go and tend to rely on display advertising (those darn annoying banners you see) for their money-making wiles.  If I describe something as darn annoying, shouldn’t that be an indication that the ads are a waste of money? But I digress.  The real reason these banners aren’t making money is because when you’re avoiding your work or killing time before the next episode of Mad Men starts, you’re clicking through pictures or video or blog posts faster than if you’re doing something a little more traditional (in internet terms, anyway) like using a portal.  “Yahoo’s news site, for example, can charge more than 30 times as much as Facebook for a banner ad.” It’s not so much that Web 3.0 is going to involve much of anything new or groundbreaking, its that someone is going to figure out how to make the old stuff (can Facebook really count as old?) turn into the original green movement – money.

Narrative 2.0 September 15, 2009

Essentially, Web 2.0 just refers to the aspect of interactivity on the Web.

Previously, a text was the voice of the absent author; he or she supplied the form and content, and the reader had no control (except to stop reading). Even more primitive (in interactivity) than an oral tale or theater drama, the written text, movie, or television show is alienated both from its author and its audience; it mediates between the two, but admits no participation in the form of questions, digressions, interaction.

Web 2.0 breaks all conventions of storytelling by its consideration of the audience. Rather than producing the content, an author’s work is now to construct a form, or the architecture of a digital text. It is then up to the audience to in turn become authors, and create a dialogue. But the conventional notion of writing as a craft is revolutionized. Rather, the author invites participation from the audience, along carefully constructed guidelines. It is then both a relinquishing of control (letting others contribute to your text), but also a new kind of power, which guides users’ thinking within prearranged (and somewhat insidious) constructs.

Any writer must consider the form of his or her text. When constructing analog writing, events and ideas can be arranged both in horizontal as well as vertical hierarchies; but, due to the temporal, linear nature of analog writing, they must eventually be flattened into a sequence. Digital writing allows for a narrative to be read across hierarchical levels, within subgroups of one branch, or in an infinite number of linked digressions.

As a writer, I’m attracted to the notion of being more of a guide than a dictator. The reader ought to be able to follow his own path (even if I have created his options). I’ve heard it said that a book is something different to each reader; but that’s just a metaphor– Web 2.0 allows each reader to literally co-create a text.

Storytelling Via Web 2.0 September 15, 2009

We know traditional storytelling as a relatively straight-forward tool; a narrated personal story of overcoming obstacles, accomplishing a goal, etc. Web 2.0 stories, on the other hand, are often broader in scope.  They can represent history, fantasy, mystery, or something that blurs the boundaries of reality and fiction.

In traditional storytelling, authors create linear narratives that flow in a unidirectional timeline. Web 2.0 narratives have the option of following that traditional timeline, but they can also take off in multiple directions, since they are often touched by multiple people. User-generated content is a key element of Web 2.0 and thanks to its existence, a reader can add content into stories directly, editing a wiki page, commenting on a Facebook post, replying to a Twitter feed, posting a video response in YouTube, etc.

With Web 2.0 bringing digital networks and social media into our lives, stories now are open-ended, branching, hyperlinked, cross-media, participatory, and unpredictable. Web 2.0 allows us to pick up and run with any online story we come across.  Web 2.0 narratives are open-ended creations that no one person has complete control over. Often, the paths do not necessarily follow routes and destinations the original author intended, but that’s the beauty and intrigue of it all.

September 13, 2009

When researching the term “Web 2.0”, I found nothing but controversy.  Who first coined the term?  Darcy DiNucci in a 1999 Print Magazine article entitled “Fragmented Future”, Timothy O’Reilly, or someone else?  There are numerous mentions of the term since that time. The term has taken hold but no one seems to agree as to its meaning.

The definition seems elusive as no one seems to agree exactly what it means if indeed it means anything.  Tim Berner-Lee, the father of the internet seems to think the term is useless.  In his opinion the web was developed as a means of communication between people and no matter what iteration of technology is involved – the web has done that since the beginning and continues to do that and will continue to do that until . . .

In 2004, Tim O’Reilly of O’Reilly publications began an annual conference entitled  Web 2.0.  His conference site, of June 2004 states: “While the first wave of the Web was closely tied to the browser, the second wave extends applications across the web and enables a new generation of services and business opportunities.” He has continued to put on this conference every year since.

Richard MacManus, in his February 1, 2005 post on the definition of Web 2.0, defines “The Web as Platform”, because I can then fill in the blanks depending on who I’m talking to. For corporate people, the Web is a platform for business. For marketers, the Web is a platform for communications. For journalists, the Web is a platform for new media. For geeks, the Web is a platform for software development. And so on.”

However, he wrote those words in 2005.  It is now 2009.  What has changed?  The way the Web content is provided, the fact that browsers are updated on a regular basis via downloads, not by purchasing software upgrades; open source material; individual web pages or blogs; the wikis; and RSS feeds. These all exist because of improved technology and business models. But are they really a new version of the Web? Are there any better definitions out there?  I do not think so.  In fact, I agree with Tim Berner-Lee.  There is no real difference between the original Web and Web 2.0 by definition.  It has always been a platform for communication.

One last final thought.  Web 3.0 is it here yet?  Does it exist?  I do not think so, based on the fact that the Web as platform for all on-line communication means that the income generated by the different business models or new technology does not change the name – it is still the Web.

¹ http://www.Digital%20Storytelling/Cole

² Web%202.0%20Definition%20and%20Tagging.webarchive