Web 2.0 Hot Air
File under "Grateful for small mercies:" I had been going to write a long-ish post about a juvenile broo-ha-ha over Web 2.0, but if I take any longer over this, the trend will be over.
The bunfight I had been watching started when Tim O'Reilly posted an article about Web 2.0 which broadly covered technical and business elements of what Web 2.0 is and might become. A rebuttal of sorts, or at least a mild criticism, came from Nicholas Carr. Cue a response to the response from O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Radar blog, and much subsequent blather from various parties.
I think the silliest part in all of this is the argument over inclusion and radical participation, versus expertise. O'Reilly and others seem to value participation over all, and it drives silly point-making like O'Reilly suggesting that because the mainstream press failed on Iraq, the whole notion of mainsteam press is discredited (this from someone who accuses Carr of sophistry, mind).
Here's a quote from O'Reilly:
Perhaps. I'd just like to note that as of last week, King Kaufman in Salon has found that his toddler son can flip coins and predict NFL games with the same rate of success as Ron Jaworski of ESPN, and Yahoo Sports users come in behind them.
The suspicion of education and expertise, whether in the blogosphere or in right-wing politics, is driving a credulous acceptance of the most pathetic tosh by people. There are explanations for experts getting things wrong that don't undercut the value of having them about the place -- e.g. people's expertise is deep but too narrow in scope, they are getting mislead by people with hidden agendas, etc.
The point is that you don't get better results by more people weighing in from a position of ignorance, with no disciplined thinking, and that's what defines so much of the blogosphere, participant-driven wikis, etc.
I mean, look at this site.
The value of Web 2.0 as a code concept is in the mash-up of processing services and data, and from a social standpoint the benefit should be the same. But tools and data are not operated or operating in a vacuum -- they are the creation of people, and if those people focus on dribbly inclusive waffling at the expense of critical thinking, then the promise of Web 2.0 is going to go the same way as the promise of Web 1.0. Which is to say, not terribly far beyond monetizing page views and restrictive DRM.
The bunfight I had been watching started when Tim O'Reilly posted an article about Web 2.0 which broadly covered technical and business elements of what Web 2.0 is and might become. A rebuttal of sorts, or at least a mild criticism, came from Nicholas Carr. Cue a response to the response from O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Radar blog, and much subsequent blather from various parties.
I think the silliest part in all of this is the argument over inclusion and radical participation, versus expertise. O'Reilly and others seem to value participation over all, and it drives silly point-making like O'Reilly suggesting that because the mainstream press failed on Iraq, the whole notion of mainsteam press is discredited (this from someone who accuses Carr of sophistry, mind).
Here's a quote from O'Reilly:
If it were merely an amplifier, blogging would be uninteresting. But like Wikipedia, blogging harnesses collective intelligence as a kind of filter. What James Suriowecki calls "the wisdom of crowds" comes into play, and much as PageRank produces better results than analysis of any individual document, the collective attention of the blogosphere selects for value.
Perhaps. I'd just like to note that as of last week, King Kaufman in Salon has found that his toddler son can flip coins and predict NFL games with the same rate of success as Ron Jaworski of ESPN, and Yahoo Sports users come in behind them.
The suspicion of education and expertise, whether in the blogosphere or in right-wing politics, is driving a credulous acceptance of the most pathetic tosh by people. There are explanations for experts getting things wrong that don't undercut the value of having them about the place -- e.g. people's expertise is deep but too narrow in scope, they are getting mislead by people with hidden agendas, etc.
The point is that you don't get better results by more people weighing in from a position of ignorance, with no disciplined thinking, and that's what defines so much of the blogosphere, participant-driven wikis, etc.
I mean, look at this site.
The value of Web 2.0 as a code concept is in the mash-up of processing services and data, and from a social standpoint the benefit should be the same. But tools and data are not operated or operating in a vacuum -- they are the creation of people, and if those people focus on dribbly inclusive waffling at the expense of critical thinking, then the promise of Web 2.0 is going to go the same way as the promise of Web 1.0. Which is to say, not terribly far beyond monetizing page views and restrictive DRM.
<< Home