'Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core' O'Reilly, T (2006). This is the crux of the idea of web 2.0. Moreover, the notion of 'harnessing a collective intelligence' is on a personal level, the interesting part. The understanding that all web 2.0 relies on the interaction and participation of the user to better the site. Therefore we rely on each other to improve the intelligence we can gain from networking sites. In regards to my profession, I immediately start thinking of sites such as Dancerspro (a casting site for dancers that allows performers to update their information, communicate with casting directors and other performers, and start threads on the forum), the Facebook page The Hustle, and The Stage jobs page as they are all networking platforms that I use regularly.
Am I an intelligent user? I have a degree of understanding on how I can gain information on areas I want. For example, if I want to ask the Dancerspro community a question on a production company, experience has taught me the most efficient way to word a question put to a forum or a search engine so that I will be presented with better or more answers on the topic. But in terms of being a good user (a prosumer) I think I'm pretty lousy. Rarely will I respond to a forum chat or comment on a thread simply to add the information on the site . I take the information I can to help myself! Never before have I actually given much thought to the idea that it's not all about taking information I need in that moment; more adding and learning from the ever expanding collective intelligence offered through web 2.0. Its also highlighted to me how much is on offer if I learn to become a clever blogger. Information and experience from other students on the BA PP, tutors, ex-students and authors is so easily accessible through their blogs. Not only this, is that the more participatory users the more intelligent the system becomes. This is outlined in Tim O'Reilly's meme of web 2.0:
I now understand the importance of a collaborative input as the basis for web 2.0.
While reading Tim O'Reilly's Blog I also drew up my own meme to outline my understanding of the different factors of Web 2.0.
Architectures of participation
The outline that web 2.0 relies on passive and active involvement from the users. This in turn leads more freedom and a democratisation of information on the web. This got me thinking of the freedom we have as users of web 2.0.
Emancipation.
I have freedom to organise my online profile - allowing me to build and modify how I look to the web 2.0 community. I don't rely on a system or Government to filter what is online, I have the right to check what can been seen by others, making anything unwanted invisible. It's all down to my online savvy! In terms of employment I have many tools at my discretion to help me show how I want to be perceived. However certain website's default rule on information / photo sharing might not be in line with what I want visible to a prospective employer.
Harnessing collective intelligence
The intelligent user and the intelligent 2.0 system have a parabolic relationship. What is asked of the web will help build links for the next user to access that information. This is called 'Hyperlinking'. 'Much as synapses form in the brain, with associations becoming stronger through repetition or intensity, the web of connections grows organically as an output of the collective activity of all web users.' O'Reilly, T.
In the same vein, if a site has little activity it's intelligence will not expand. Web 2.0 relies on activity. Much like this blog and the online nature of the BA in Professional Practice I am reliant on other students and the tutors checking in and commenting so I can maintain that I'm on the right track!
Remixable data and transformations
The blurring between consumer and producer - the prosumer. No web 2.0 is ever 'finished'. Everything is in a constant state of change as users comment, edit. The notion that getting involved will be more attractive, as there is less of the stress of creating an artefact alone. You are not solely responsible for the content of a website.
I also thought about the ethical connotations of remixable data. Is it harder to find the facts online? As so many resources are wikis, how do we know who came up with a theory first? Something that would prove tricky to the citing student! Also, is it easier for users to shirk responsibility for something that might be considered unethical online? I think about my teaching work. Obviously there are clear company and governmental rules about how much information I could put online about children. But, because of the nature of the web and how so many people can alter information, it could get confusing who would be held accountable if personal information was displayed on a constantly changing web 2.0 setting.
O'Reilly, T. (2006) 'What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns And Business Models For The Next Generation Of Software', Online, Available from:
http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Am I an intelligent user? I have a degree of understanding on how I can gain information on areas I want. For example, if I want to ask the Dancerspro community a question on a production company, experience has taught me the most efficient way to word a question put to a forum or a search engine so that I will be presented with better or more answers on the topic. But in terms of being a good user (a prosumer) I think I'm pretty lousy. Rarely will I respond to a forum chat or comment on a thread simply to add the information on the site . I take the information I can to help myself! Never before have I actually given much thought to the idea that it's not all about taking information I need in that moment; more adding and learning from the ever expanding collective intelligence offered through web 2.0. Its also highlighted to me how much is on offer if I learn to become a clever blogger. Information and experience from other students on the BA PP, tutors, ex-students and authors is so easily accessible through their blogs. Not only this, is that the more participatory users the more intelligent the system becomes. This is outlined in Tim O'Reilly's meme of web 2.0:
 |
| 'Blogs: Participation not publishing'!
|
While reading Tim O'Reilly's Blog I also drew up my own meme to outline my understanding of the different factors of Web 2.0.
 |
| Tim O'Reilly's 'Three Competencies' 1) Architectures of participation 2) Remixable data and transformations 3) Harnessing collective intelligence |
 |
| 'Architectures of participation' culture of the consumer = culture of the production Cheap - Easy - Quick = Emancipation of the user |
The outline that web 2.0 relies on passive and active involvement from the users. This in turn leads more freedom and a democratisation of information on the web. This got me thinking of the freedom we have as users of web 2.0.
Emancipation.
I have freedom to organise my online profile - allowing me to build and modify how I look to the web 2.0 community. I don't rely on a system or Government to filter what is online, I have the right to check what can been seen by others, making anything unwanted invisible. It's all down to my online savvy! In terms of employment I have many tools at my discretion to help me show how I want to be perceived. However certain website's default rule on information / photo sharing might not be in line with what I want visible to a prospective employer.
 |
| The idea of 'harnessing collective intelligence' The intelligent user = the intelligent system = an efficient search engine |
The intelligent user and the intelligent 2.0 system have a parabolic relationship. What is asked of the web will help build links for the next user to access that information. This is called 'Hyperlinking'. 'Much as synapses form in the brain, with associations becoming stronger through repetition or intensity, the web of connections grows organically as an output of the collective activity of all web users.' O'Reilly, T.
In the same vein, if a site has little activity it's intelligence will not expand. Web 2.0 relies on activity. Much like this blog and the online nature of the BA in Professional Practice I am reliant on other students and the tutors checking in and commenting so I can maintain that I'm on the right track!
Remixable data and transformations
The blurring between consumer and producer - the prosumer. No web 2.0 is ever 'finished'. Everything is in a constant state of change as users comment, edit. The notion that getting involved will be more attractive, as there is less of the stress of creating an artefact alone. You are not solely responsible for the content of a website.
I also thought about the ethical connotations of remixable data. Is it harder to find the facts online? As so many resources are wikis, how do we know who came up with a theory first? Something that would prove tricky to the citing student! Also, is it easier for users to shirk responsibility for something that might be considered unethical online? I think about my teaching work. Obviously there are clear company and governmental rules about how much information I could put online about children. But, because of the nature of the web and how so many people can alter information, it could get confusing who would be held accountable if personal information was displayed on a constantly changing web 2.0 setting.
O'Reilly, T. (2006) 'What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns And Business Models For The Next Generation Of Software', Online, Available from:
http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
No comments:
Post a Comment