“Web 2.0 is the term given to describe a second generation of the World Wide Web that is focused on the ability for people to collaborate and share information online.” (http://webopedia.com/TERM/W/Web_2_point_0.html)
Web 2.0 websites allows for increased interaction compared to Web 1.0 websites that just retrieve information. It has been a improvement on the interactive facilities of Web 1.0 to provide cloud computing, allowing users to run software-applications entirely through a browser. Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site and exercise control over that data. e.g facebook, bebo, twitter etc. These sites encourage users to add value to the application as they use it, which stands in contrast to traditional websites, that tended to have a limited visitor experience and whose content the user could not interact with. Web 2.0 sites offer a much richer and more user-friendly experience. It differs from Web 1.0 because it allows for user generated content, citizen journalism, social networking, information sharing etc and is therefore often referred to as the 'DIY Internet' or 'architecture of participation'.
Is today's Internet killing our culture?
The rise of Web 2.0 has negative aspects also allowing anyone to generate content to share it with an audience across the web. As a result the quality of media content that certain generations are taking in has gone down. User generated websites such as Wikipedia can have a negative impact on society. Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia written collaboratively by its users from all around the world. The fact that anyone can edit its content, means that a lot of the information might not be necessarily factually correct. Where are the contributors sourcing their information? If you compare it to another on-line encyclopedia e.g Britannia Online encyclopedia, which website would you go to for researching founded facts? There are also other negative aspects some of which are, a lack of face-to-face communication, an avoidance of interpersonal interactivity, obesity amongst children, sexual predators, identity theft, on-line bullying.
Although, there are these negeative aspects the user-generated revolution of web 2.0 is clearly gaining more popularity and is noticeably replacing the more traditional means of information sharing. Media companies are betting on the longevity of user-generated sites by acquiring them. News Corp bought MySpace, AOL paid $850 million for social networking site Bebo and The New York Times owns About.com.
Web 2.0 technologies have become an effective means of communicating within our society as it allows for instant communication and information gathering thereby helping to bring the world closer together through allowing users to experience other cultures with the click of a button and helping to eliminate ignorance towards other cultures. Although these services are very beneficial to our society, I still believe that more strict regulations should be implemented to combat on-line bullying, identity theft and factually incorrect content.
So, are there any experts?
User-generated content will never replace The New York Times or Britannica Online for the overall quality of content, but reading informational blogs, or political blogs about issues such as global warming provides some perspectives that you don't get from newspapers. Even though Britannica Online's content is more reliable, there is no way it will ever match the coverage of Wikipedia, because of it thousands of amateur contributors. Although the quality of most Wikipedia entries is surprisingly good and factually correct, there are times I want the certainty that the work I am referencing is factually correct, written and edited by experts.
“Ideally, I see Internet content being a blend of professional and amateur content, but how do we develop an economic model that supports both?" (Whitehouse, 2008)
Sources
What is Web 2.0?
The Architecture of Participation
The Social Impact of the Web
The Experts vs. the Amateurs: A Tug of War over the Future of Media
No comments:
Post a Comment