From Webstock
(Difference between revisions)
|
|
| (One intermediate revision not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | Wiki for the [[http://webstock.org.nz Webstock]] Web 2.0 debate. | | Wiki for the [[http://webstock.org.nz Webstock]] Web 2.0 debate. |
| | | | |
| - | ==Web 2.0 debate==
| + | rythSh Really appreciate you sharing this blog.Really thank you! Keep writing. |
| - | Our position is to argue against the statement: "Web 2.0 is all fizz and no substance". In other words we have to prove how and why Web 2.0 is important and meaningful.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ===Philip's Notes===
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | [[Philip's notes]]
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ===Brenda's Notes===
| + | |
| - | * the body of web 2.0-ish content is substantive in itself
| + | |
| - | * numbers of blogs
| + | |
| - | * wikis
| + | |
| - | * This guy has an interesting take on twitter - that essentially it helps middle-aged men connect with each other and be part of the world ... odd that! http://www.kn.com.au/networks/2007/05/twittering.html
| + | |
| - | * http://www.slideshare.net/thomaid/web-20-and-you - backgrounder
| + | |
| - | * This is pretty substantial - real people getting together courtesy of "web2.0 communications toolkit" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BarCamp
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ===Che's Notes===
| + | |
| - | Man, late to the party on this one... pesky work getting in the way.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | * who is likely to make the assertion that [insert relevant venue]2.0 is all fizz? i would think it is people who have little to no experience of it's potential.
| + | |
| - | * most web2.0 applications are currently toys, but all tools begin as toys. it's the transformation from toy to tool that makes something useful.
| + | |
| - | * what gives web2.0 its usefulness is that it is currently under development. but development in an anarchistic, random, crowd-pleasing kind of way. this gives the appearance of "fizz", but in fact is a non-centred, user-adherent evolution of a new way of interacting.
| + | |
| - | * let's not overlook that web2.0 is all about direct engagement. if it has the appearance of fizz, it is because you have people talking directly to people without third-party mediation. consequently the noise to information ratio can be very high. but that just makes web2.0 more like 'real-world' conversations, and less like speaking to someone through the letters page of the newspaper.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ===Some questions===
| + | |
| - | * (brian@silverstripe.com) Does "no substance" in the debate question translate to "nothing that will displace desktop applications?" I'd be really curious to find out what the "no substance" part means. Because as Brenda said in her notes, the quantity of 2.0 stuff happening is substantial.
| + | |
| - | * (brian@silverstripe.com) Google Gears is their version of Firefox 3.0's local content. Both Google and Firefox have a vision for disconnected and semi-connected user experiences. Is this part of Web 2.0? I think it is. And it shows how the web is evolving into something far beyond what Tim Berners-Lee imagined just 13 years ago.
| + | |
Current revision as of 19:02, 8 March 2012
Wiki for the [Webstock] Web 2.0 debate.
rythSh Really appreciate you sharing this blog.Really thank you! Keep writing.
