Does it matter?
Does it matter if users are aware that the technologies that they are using are part of Web 2.0 or not? Does it matter if they use the "correct" terminology for what they are doing? In thyinking about my early experiences on the Internet and on the Web, I was not aware when I was using one or the other (nor did I even know there was a difference). And, I would hazzard a guess that most people do not know the difference and they are perfectly capable of navigating their digital life just fine.
However, academic folks (aka super geeks) need to think about things all the time and I'm wondering if this difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is significant to the average use or just to those of us who agonize over such things? If the user is not aware if s/he is using a tool from Web 1.0 or Web 2.0 does it matter? Also, even though the technologies of Web 2.0 allow different types of interaction, they do not require it. By this I mean that there are many ways to use the tools of Web 2.0 to do Web 1.0 type of things.
It's interesting to me that corporations, political candidactes, museums, etc. have facebook and myspace pages now. The information is rather formal and static (at least in the ones that I know of). I think they could basically accomplish the same things through a web site. However, these sites allow people to become "friends" with the company, candidate, museum. Is this difference enough to say that they are embracing this new technology?
Perhaps, I'm heading too far down the "if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a noise?" path, but I'm hoping that someone can follow my logic and respond.
Comments
I think the reason companies and corporations use myspace and facebook is for free advertisement and word of mouth. For example, I got a friend request from a company called Downbound, which is an environmentally friendly clothing company that I had requested fabric samples from. In looking through the profile page, I found that the owner of the company fed his pets vegan pet food, and was intrigued enough to search the site to learn more about this product. I never would have sought out the vegan pet food but was piqued by what I saw on the facebook page. Other bigger corporations are using this sort of networking as a marketing tool. If one popular girl at a high school is friends with a certain company, her peers and peons will want to be friends with that company too and will want to use their products. It's not the same as having a website because with a website the company has to wait for users to come to them while with networking sites, the ad is reaching new viewers simply by being associated with existing users.
I don't think that the distinction between 2.0 and 1.0 is important for most web users. I do however think that it is important for educators and students to understand simply by virtue of what its potential is. User generated content is incredibly important and is not something that today's teachers can overlook. Students need to learn how to create meaningful content in any context...the 2.0 tools are a way to do this and make it available to the entire world. This carries with it a responsibility that will not go away when 2.0 is passe.
True, most users can navigate digital life without caring what the label for the tool their using is. But I think 2.0 is partially about a different approach to information. And that is what is significant about it. The average user does not necessarily need to understand the vernacular of the digital community in order to consume and create meaningful content.
Students may not find it useful to know that the web didn't used to be so user-generated. If they are to be the people to create and design future incarnations of the Internet however, they do need to know what the digital immigrants are capable of and used to.
Posted by: katie | October 31, 2007 9:38 PM
You raise an interesting poitn about user-created content. When I did some research on critical thinking and the WWW, one of the main things that came up was if students should or should not believe what they read on the web and this was (largely) the extent of the discussions of critical thinking. But, I think there is far more to it. However, how can we as teachers or just as consumers know who is authoring the content on the tools of Web 2.0. The line between official and unofficial content is increasingly blurred. This is thrilling and exciting in many ways as us "little people" get to have a voice. It's also alarming how ideas can be spread worldwide quickly that may promote hatred or intolerance.
Posted by: Melanie | November 4, 2007 4:41 PM
I'm been wrestling with this issue as well, whether it makes any difference what term or catch phrase we use to describe what's been happening on the Web lately. I emphasize the "been" since we (in education) seem to be about a year or so behind this conversation in the blogosphere (e.g., see Web 2.0 is a State of Mind, Chris Heuer, 2006). When I talk with teachers I do use "Web 2.0" to make a distinction between the social-participatory nature of the Web today vs the "old" static model where you went to a web page to simply retrieve information. The problem is that too many teachers are still stuck in the old model--either out of necessity (e.g, their school blocks blogs, wikis, social networks, and content-sharing sites) or they simply don't know where to get started with Web 2.0 tools. I like to think there are more teachers out there that fall into the latter category and are willing to give some of the new web tools a try.
-craig
Posted by: craig roland | November 7, 2007 4:44 PM
I think you're right that what many people (politicians, businesses,etc) are using on 2.0 platforms could just as easily be accomplished on static sites. I don't think most users need to know the difference between 1.0 and 2.0 as long as the technology does not become a hindrance. Most users are "practical users" who just want the experience to work.
Ken
web geek
http://shop.bluehaven.com
Posted by: Ken | December 3, 2007 6:33 PM
One thing to note is that the technology of Web 2.0 is not different, it's just that the "application" and the way we use the web is different. This What Is Web 2.0 article on O'Reilly.com is a good read. It references Ofoto vs. Flickr. If you think about the technology, it wasn't different, it was just the way people were using the site, to create social identities or social communities.
Posted by: kim | December 20, 2007 8:40 PM