Web 2.0 or Not Web 2.0?

Newsweek and Slate offer different angles on “the new Internet boom”

Now that the term Web 2.0 has made the cover of Newsweek, it’s no surprise that some media have started bashing what they once reveled in. With the new Internet boom becoming THE NEW INTERNET BOOM, tech reporters have started scrutinizing the hype, put the “boom” in quotation-marks, and tell us despite all the noise around Web 2.0 and hundreds of millions of dollars invested in consumer media start-ups that nothing has really changed: the Internet is still the Internet, and Web 2.0 is just a silly label that some self-proclaimed thought leaders came up with. Paul Boutin offers one of these “the truth about Web 2.0” articles on Slate. He contends that “The new Internet ‘boom’ doesn't live up to its name.” First, Boutin chastises Tim O’Reillly for his definition of Web 2.0:

“Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an ‘architecture of participation,’ and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.”

“Got all that?” asks Boutin rhetorically. Yes, Paul, we did get all that, and it actually makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, Boutin himself doesn’t offer any definition of what all the new start-ups, blogs, and social media sites are all about, but the one he refers to later in his text explains why Web 2.0 is different from what we might now call Web 1.0: “A ‘Web 2.0 play’ is a bid to make money by funding a bring-your-own-content site. It's a long-shot but low-risk investment that could become the next Google. Or at least the next thing Google buys.”

So, no cultural and societal change? Just a “technology upgrade,” as Boutin wants us to believe?

Boutin writes: “There's an easy way to describe today's online culture of participation without invoking Web 2.0 at all. Just call it the Internet. That way, everyone will know what you mean.”

Paul –as a journalist, you must understand that it sometimes makes sense to give things a name. Why not brand a new breed of applications and a new social phenomenon (MySpace!) and understand it as an evolution of the Internet we once knew? Or would you honestly claim that Flickr, MySpace, Ning, or YouTube could have existed six years ago? With all due respect to journalistic skepticism, we expect a little bit more enthusiasm and open-mindedness. Call it Slate 2.0.

Comments

[neal moore]

An excellent rebuttal to the sanctimonious Slate. As the author suggest, yes Mr. Boutin, we do get Web 2.0, thank you very much. For more about how citizen journalism is a prime example of Web 2.0, go here:
http://www.nextnews.org

[H.A. Page]

It is just the pendulum swinging to center the awesome changes that could move forward after the last dip and shake-out. It will still remain chaotic.

Cheers, Hattie on New Media