Web 2.0

When reading O'Reilly's article, I could only accept the honesty when he states the criticism of this term being more than a meaningless marketing buzzword. I grasp that the web has become more of an interactive platform than a simply extension of published texts. I accept the analogy of the webtop being similar to the horseless carriage. I acknowledge that Netscape has given way to Google, that DoubleClick has given way to AdSense, that Akamai has been replaced by BitTorrent, that Britannica Online is no longer as significant as Wikipedia, that blogging has become more popular than personal website, and that publishing by experts is now less important that the participation of users. I resent the wording when it comes to the blogging and the wisdom of crowds and the obfuscation of the fact that this culture of participation is rooted in the desire to have customers volunteer their time to do what had previously been done by paid employees. Most of the article discusses the business potential of the revolution in information dissemination. The perpetual beta is interesting in that it is the manner in which these hugely successful companies have decided to make their money. On the other hand, there is still the monopolistic control on technology Microsoft has, and those who cannot afford to buy an Apple computer are still forced to continue purchasing products from this company every few years. Though the article paints a pictures of communities being built around sites such as Flickr, Napster, MySpace and Facebook, I still believe that the other more traditional communities suffer as a result. These communities are first and foremost prosumers, or with the neologisms put aside, consumers. As Tim Berners-Lee states, most of this is simply jargon. Darcy DiNucci, a consultant, coined this term. In reading the wikipedia article, I was slapped in the face with the underlying nature of this movement. The Web 2.0 is instrumental in getting customers to build business for the people whom they give their money. In assessing the merits, we are asked to completely forget about the never-ending spamming and trolling we must endure. Though "we" were chosen as the Person of The Year in 2006 by Time magazine, I support John Flintoff's assertion that Web 2.0 has created an endless digital forest of mediocrity. Adrew Keen's description of digital narcissism and amateurism is rather poignant. The accumulative value of centuries of print and peer-review should not be tossed out the window in the pursuit of greater participation. Let us not forget that over the centuries, experts have been given their status after jumping through countless hoops and never-ending accreditation. The cult of the amateur, though valuable to companies trying to cash in on fads and trends, still calls to mind the nature of society displayed in the film Idiocracy. It is well-known that television stations experimented with broadcasting informational shows that flopped and became commercial failures. Mass consumerism, though being the engine car of our recent service-based economy, does not in and of itself justify tossing out the book we have written over millennia. As useful as I have found wikipedia as a launch pad for further research, the idea of trusting all members is beyond short-sighted.