Task 1b

Reader 1 has certainly got me thinking.


I had no idea the web was so complicated. Or that so much work had gone into it. I had certainly, in my head, never differentiated between the possibilities of having Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. I'd just accepted the internet for what it was.  Much in the same way I went into my front room one day and discovered we had a new TV set that no longer required the remote to be plugged in.


I don't remember exactly when I became aware of an interactive platform, one where content changed from being purely '”published' to being “participatory” but suddenly everyone was “MSNing” and “Facebooking” (although back then they were 'MySpacing”) and I along with my contemporaries embraced it. I often wonder if any other generation is going to see the kind of advances mine has seen.


A question that had certainly never occurred to me is: What is Google? Much like I've never thought about a lot of things! I like the way Google was described:

“Google's service is not a server--though it is delivered by a massive collection of internet servers--nor a browser--though it is experienced by the user within the browser. Nor does its flagship search service even host the content that it enables users to find. Much like a phone call, which happens not just on the phones at either end of the call, but on the network in between, Google happens in the space between browser and search engine and destination content server, as an enabler or middleman between the user and his or her online experience”

During my schooling I often used Microsoft Encarta or more relevant to this topic Britannica Online as a resource for my homework, and that was perfectly acceptable. However its web 2.0 successor, Wikipedia, is an interactive platform allowing anyone to contribute to the information it supplies. For me, the differences between Britannica Online and Wikipedia are a great example of the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 and one I was able to relate to: Britannica Online was published whilst Wikipedia is participatory.


The Reader highlighted many aspects that contribute towards a site being classed as web 2.0. The example above highlights one of those aspects; the question of trust within 2.0. Which made me consider: Is this all good? Wikipedia for example is not a respected information centre due to 'anyone' being able to write or change it despite it being the majority of our 'go to' for information. On a separate issue of trust, we enter our personal details into these platforms, on Facebook for example and then wonder how 'appropriate' (semi-relevant) advertisements pop up.


The article by O’Reilly mentioned that some people consider Web 2.0 just “a meaningless marketing buzzword”. I thought that was really interesting, and brings me back in my thinking to my opening paragraph.


Another aspect that interested me was the idea that software gets better the more people use it:


"Network effects from user contributions are key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era.”.


A resent example of this being brought into the public eye, rather than just happening 'behind the scenes'- was when in the iPhone took google maps off the IOS 6 update: Apple v Google Maps. I think I remember them saying “the more people use it, the better it will get” at the time...


This Reader also reaffirms a point Alan raised on a previous blog post of mine about getting involved: Blogging in itself is not a use of Web 2.0 platform. It's the participating in the conversations which your blog creates, or that of others.  It also raised the idea that 'tagging' helps to create traffic, which is not something I had thought about before and will look into.


There are many things I now understand to be 2.0 applications that I would have had no idea about, prior to the Reader. Things I use everyday: Facebook, Twitter, Shazam, YouTube, Google, Amazon and the list goes on.


In addition to all these things, I have also learned some new vocabulary! Folksonimy, Taxonomy and RRS Technology to name a few.


I was reading on a blog that some people had the function to 'subscibe to blog' on their page. RSS technology allows you to subscribe to pages - notified each time something changes, and this is something I have now put on my blog. I think it would be a really useful and time saving tool for everyone studying the BAPP to add as we would automatically get notified of all new posts.


However the big issue for me, is still the ethical issue of confidentiality and safe guarding with regard to my job which I have been fairly vocal about in previous posts, and in emails to the university before commencement of this module. The issue of my privacy within Web 2.0 technology continue to raise concerns for me too. These are all things that I am hoping to find ways around as my knowledge and thought processes increase.