I would like to address some feelings I had regarding the readings we discussed this week. A question was posed about how we as a class felt about the differences in how Web 2.0 was defined between three different articles:
What is Web 2.0
Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration
Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship
Between these two articles, there are some similarities, as well as some subtle differences. Ultimately I feel that the terms used are arbitrary, and just another way to define the same thing. Let me elaborate…
All of the articles touch on many of the same core concepts of Web 2.0. To rely solely on one alone I think is limiting. Each article seems to have simply a further breakdown of these core concepts which I feel are, but not limited to:
- User Generated Content
- User Driven
If you consider the McAfee (2009) handout we got as defining Web 2.0 as ESSPs, or emergent social software platforms, you can see many similarities. The terms used here are social software, platforms, emergent, and freeform. If you take the definitions (I will just use the keywords) and compare them to the categories I have just listed, you get a very close comparison.
Connectivity = social software
Sharing and communication = platforms
User generated content and user driven = emergent and freeform
Take the same comparative concept to the Enterprise 2.0 article. There are 6 “slates” which McAfee (2006) describes as the 6 components of Enterprise 2.0 technologies. Search, links, authoring, tags, extensions, and signals. You can group these all into the same categories I listed above.
Connectivity = Search
Sharing = Links, tags
Communication = Signals
User generated content and user driven = Authoring, extensions
You could argue that extensions is a little harder to place, but in order for services like Stumbleupon to operate, they need user input. With more users, you have a larger audience, and better “stumbles”.
Overall, I really liked all three articles. For personal preference, I especially enjoyed the first one, What is Web 2.0. It seemed almost a checklist of things that make social media successful, or how to be successful in using social media. I also enjoyed the reference to Intel Inside, and at first I didn’t understand. Once we discussed it a lot more, the light bulb definitely came on and I thought back to that section and had one of those “It all makes sense now!” sort of reactions.
All of the various examples of how social media came to be, and how some companies fell short of a quality service was very educating. Great first set of articles!