My husband and I went out to dinner last night and as we arewont to do, we got into a discussion about the meaning of x (xbeing in this case, Web 2.0, or more precisely, the definitionof 2.0 as applied to different things such as Web 2.0, Library2.0, Learning 2.0, etc). What started it was that we'd both reada post by John Blyberg about whether or not Library 2.0 requiredtechnology and being 'plugged-in', or if Library 2.0 wassomething more or different than just technology (to poorlyparaphrase).
I'd been mulling over this ever since I first heard the termapplied and I thought it was a very interesting question. Seanfelt that technology (specifically, the web) was inherent in2.0. That without the web and all the things it now allowspeople to easily do, 2.0 (as is defined) would not exist. (Myapologies to Sean for trying to quote him. I'm sure he will bewriting a blog on the same thing and I will put a link to itwhen he does).
I felt that 2.0 was a concept of a web that was facilitated andenhanced by technology, but that it was a mindset/concept ratherthan something concrete that requires the web and/or technology.I believed that many of the 2.0 tools could be replicated inother, non-technological ways (albeit on a smaller scale and/ornot as easily or well). In fact, I felt they already have been,it just was not recognized as being a valuable way to interactand worth evaluating how it fits into the business, learning,library, etc. models.
I think from a social and a "geek" (for lack of a better word)standpoint, it has been around for quite a while. People whoshare strong common interests will always find a way tointeract. Through conventions or clubs or contests or meetingplaces or correspondence or any number of other ways, they willfind a way to interact and to share ideas, discoveries,passions, etc. I also believe though, that the value of that interactionand sharing was not recognized as something that is of valuefor more standardized, generic, broad-based things, likelearning or libraries or businesses and that this is where 2.0comes into play.
However, that all being said, I realized that I don't reallyknow the accepted definition of generic 2.0, much lessthe definition is of Web2.0, Library2.0, Learning2.0, etc.And I'm not sure there is a definition of 2.0 in general. Itseems to have started with (been coined by) a conferencebrainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLiveInternational. in 2003 or 2004, as near as I can tell. Here is aquote of his "compact definition of Web2.0":
"Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connecteddevices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most ofthe intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering softwareas a continually-updated service that gets better the morepeople use it, consuming and remixing data from multiplesources, including individual users, while providing their owndata and services in a form that allows remixing by others,creating network effects through an "architecture ofparticipation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 todeliver rich user experiences."
That does seem to be referring to it as specifically a platform,rather than a web of people, ideas, sharing, etc. Here is thelong version of his creating and defining Web2.0 (it goes into alot of detail and the thought process they went through). Andhere is another view of Web2.0, the Web2.0 Cheat Sheet.After just browsing for Web2.0 definitions and reading the many,many comments they get, I still have not figured out exactlywhat it is and encompasses (although I have a better idea ofwhat it "means").
And I wonder if it really matters if we can say definitivelywhat is and isn't "2.0". Perhaps the value of the 2.0 label isto get people to broaden, examine, enhance and change how theyview doing things. To see what other people have done by doingwhat I am doing, by trying to find out what is Web2.0,Learning2.0, Library2.0. And then, by that process, seeing whathas been done and what can be done and using it to start thinkingof ways to incorporate the various tools or ideas or creationsthat they find in the process.
I guess that for me, it is like the famous quote on obscenity:"I know it when I see it".
~Susan Mellott
~ by smmellott on July 16, 2007.
Leave a Reply