Bye-bye Web 2.0, and hello Web 3.0
Wikimedia
By OON YEOH
Mainstream media publications seeking to grab the numbers back from bloggers should leapfrog into the new quality-assured content platform.
WEB 2.0 is a phrase that gets bandied about quite a bit these days. If you ask three people what it means you’ll probably get three different answers.
That’s understandable, because there is no official definition.
Tim O’Reilly, the man who popularised the phrase in 2004, describes it as “the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform”.
Kind of vague, but in the context of New Media it refers to the use of the Internet as a means of collaboration, where the audience becomes part of the content creation process.
Think of it this way: Web 1.0 is a one-way street, where the publisher puts up some content and the audience consumes it. Web 2.0 is a two-way street, where the publisher puts up some content and the audience is able to respond to it.
Blogs are one of the earliest and simplest expressions of the Web 2.0 trend as they allow readers to post comments.
Social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and Friendster are all very Web 2.0 because they are designed to encourage interaction among users. Wikis are also a good example of Web 2.0 in action as the content is generated by multiple users.
Web 2.0 has certainly democratised the media. American journalist A.J. Liebling’s famous dictum, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one”, may have been true in his time (he died in 1963) and may have been true right up until the turn of the new century.But it’s certainly not true today.Not even inMalaysia
Mainstream media might still be constrained by the Printing Presses and Publications Act but online media is not. Thanks to Web 2.0, anybody can be a publisher. The result is a blossoming of content.
Where once the Malaysian political blogosphere pretty much consisted of Jeff Ooi, there are now way too many political bloggers to keep track of. There's some really good stuff out there. There’s also a lot of rubbish. And that’s the chief drawback of the free-for-all nature of Web 2.0.
This point has been well articulated by Nicholas Carr, author of Does IT Matter and The Big Switch. As early as 2005, he was already questioning whether Web 2.0 – with its emphasis on participation, collectivism, virtual communities, and amateurism – is necessarily a good thing.
“I’m all for blogs and blogging,” says Carr. “But I’m not blind to the limitations and the flaws of the blogosphere – its superficiality, its emphasis on opinion over reporting, its echolalia, its tendency to reinforce rather than challenge ideological extremism and segregation.”
Carr acknowledges that mainstream media has its shortcomings, too.
“All the same criticisms can (and should) be hurled at segments of the mainstream media,” he says. “And yet, at its best, the mainstream media is able to do things that are different from – and, yes, more important than – what bloggers can do.”
He’s talking about things like funding in-depth reporting and underwriting projects that can take weeks or even months to reach fruition. It’s also able to hire professional editors and proofreaders.
“Forced to choose between reading blogs and subscribing to, say, theNewYork Times, the Financial Times, the Atlantic , and the Economist, I will choose the latter. I will take the professionals over the amateurs,” he says.
As a heavy consumer of both blogs and mainstream media, I can’t say I totally agree with Carr.It really depends on the topics. For mobile research, I find that blogs written by industry experts are far superior to anything I can find in mainstream media. That’s because that topic is too niche for mainstream media.For politics, if I’m pressed for time, I’d take Malaysiakini and Malaysian Insider (neither of which are very Web 2.0-ish) over the multitude of political blogs out there. There are exceptions, of course. I make it a point to read Rocky’s Bru every day (but then again, that blog is maintained by a former newspaper editor).
A good middle ground might be achieved through Web 3.0 which, like its 2.0 cousin, does not have an official definition. In fact, its meaning is even fuzzier.
But recently, I came across an interesting description by Peter Whitehead, Digital Business Editor at the Financial Times.He describes it as such: Web 2.0 is a world in which anyone can have a go at generating content; Web 3.0 is where professionals take the lead in shaping that content.
In other words, professionals anchor the content generation process and amateurs participate.
FT Digital Business' new online Personal View series attempts to do this by asking professionals from across the IT sector to share their opinions on an array of topics.
Each subject will be examined for three weeks, and in the third week there will be space for extra contributions from readers and other professionals.
So, through its Digital Business section, FT is attempting to leap from the old world of Web 1.0, over the messy world of Web 2.0, into the “quality-assured” world of Web 3.0.
Perhaps this is what mainstream media publications inMalaysia
Oon Yeoh is already wondering what Web 4.0 will be about. You can reach him at www.oonyeoh.comI>
That’s understandable, because there is no official definition.
Tim O’Reilly, the man who popularised the phrase in 2004, describes it as “the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform”.
Kind of vague, but in the context of New Media it refers to the use of the Internet as a means of collaboration, where the audience becomes part of the content creation process.
Think of it this way: Web 1.0 is a one-way street, where the publisher puts up some content and the audience consumes it. Web 2.0 is a two-way street, where the publisher puts up some content and the audience is able to respond to it.
Blogs are one of the earliest and simplest expressions of the Web 2.0 trend as they allow readers to post comments.
Social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and Friendster are all very Web 2.0 because they are designed to encourage interaction among users. Wikis are also a good example of Web 2.0 in action as the content is generated by multiple users.
Web 2.0 has certainly democratised the media. American journalist A.J. Liebling’s famous dictum, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one”, may have been true in his time (he died in 1963) and may have been true right up until the turn of the new century.But it’s certainly not true today.Not even in
Mainstream media might still be constrained by the Printing Presses and Publications Act but online media is not. Thanks to Web 2.0, anybody can be a publisher. The result is a blossoming of content.
Where once the Malaysian political blogosphere pretty much consisted of Jeff Ooi, there are now way too many political bloggers to keep track of. There's some really good stuff out there. There’s also a lot of rubbish. And that’s the chief drawback of the free-for-all nature of Web 2.0.
This point has been well articulated by Nicholas Carr, author of Does IT Matter and The Big Switch. As early as 2005, he was already questioning whether Web 2.0 – with its emphasis on participation, collectivism, virtual communities, and amateurism – is necessarily a good thing.
“I’m all for blogs and blogging,” says Carr. “But I’m not blind to the limitations and the flaws of the blogosphere – its superficiality, its emphasis on opinion over reporting, its echolalia, its tendency to reinforce rather than challenge ideological extremism and segregation.”
Carr acknowledges that mainstream media has its shortcomings, too.
“All the same criticisms can (and should) be hurled at segments of the mainstream media,” he says. “And yet, at its best, the mainstream media is able to do things that are different from – and, yes, more important than – what bloggers can do.”
He’s talking about things like funding in-depth reporting and underwriting projects that can take weeks or even months to reach fruition. It’s also able to hire professional editors and proofreaders.
“Forced to choose between reading blogs and subscribing to, say, theNew
As a heavy consumer of both blogs and mainstream media, I can’t say I totally agree with Carr.It really depends on the topics. For mobile research, I find that blogs written by industry experts are far superior to anything I can find in mainstream media. That’s because that topic is too niche for mainstream media.For politics, if I’m pressed for time, I’d take Malaysiakini and Malaysian Insider (neither of which are very Web 2.0-ish) over the multitude of political blogs out there. There are exceptions, of course. I make it a point to read Rocky’s Bru every day (but then again, that blog is maintained by a former newspaper editor).
A good middle ground might be achieved through Web 3.0 which, like its 2.0 cousin, does not have an official definition. In fact, its meaning is even fuzzier.
But recently, I came across an interesting description by Peter Whitehead, Digital Business Editor at the Financial Times.He describes it as such: Web 2.0 is a world in which anyone can have a go at generating content; Web 3.0 is where professionals take the lead in shaping that content.
In other words, professionals anchor the content generation process and amateurs participate.
FT Digital Business' new online Personal View series attempts to do this by asking professionals from across the IT sector to share their opinions on an array of topics.
Each subject will be examined for three weeks, and in the third week there will be space for extra contributions from readers and other professionals.
So, through its Digital Business section, FT is attempting to leap from the old world of Web 1.0, over the messy world of Web 2.0, into the “quality-assured” world of Web 3.0.
Perhaps this is what mainstream media publications in
Oon Yeoh is already wondering what Web 4.0 will be about. You can reach him at www.oonyeoh.comI>
when talking about web 2.0, what i know is,it is relate with blog , facebook and something like that.In my opinion, "Web 2.0" was born through the database-driven platforms allowing site membership, user-contributed content, and member interaction which arose in the early part of this century after the first internet bubble burst.I consider most web sites I build to be "Web 2.0". an incremental improvement of technology, interfaces, and concepts, but basically providing ways for users to communicate with the web site publishers and with each other.
ReplyDeleteIn the Web2.0 era, the value of the Internet, an unprecedented interactive play, instant messaging as a communication vehicle for both the link connecting the relationship between human beings, but also to expand personal network space channels. With the horizon, and the hearing of the century good margin is similar to other Internet giants also have to turn our gaze with the network version of instant communication tools related to business integration.Some experts believe that the foundation for Web 3.0 will be application programming interfaces (APIs). An API is an interface designed to allow developers to create applications that take advantage of a certain set of resources. Many Web 2.0 sites include APIs that give programmers access to the sites' unique data and capabilities. For example, Facebook's API allows developers to create programs that use Facebook as a staging ground for games, quizzes, product reviews and more.
One Web 2.0 trend that could help the development of Web 3.0 is the mashup. A mashup is the combination of two or more applications into a single application. For example, a developer might combine a program that lets users review restaurants with Google Maps. The new mashup application could show not only restaurant reviews, but also map them out so that the user could see the restaurants' locations. Some Internet experts believe that creating mashups will be so easy in Web 3.0 that anyone will be able to do it.
Other experts think that Web 3.0 will start fresh. Instead of using HTML as the basic coding language, it will rely on some new -- and unnamed -- language. These experts suggest it might be easier to start from scratch rather than try to change the current Web. However, this version of Web 3.0 is so theoretical that it's practically impossible to say how it will work.Web2.0 generally means User Generated Content which creates a completely new paradigm of relationship between the service owner who provides the technological framework and the users who create their own content withing the framework & regulations. Web2.0 was created as some kind of buzzword and nowadays is often associated with Social Media.
Web3.0 is a theoretical concept of Internet developement in the future. There are two trends being discussed:
1) semantic web i.e. web with the meaning accessible by the computers
2) hive mind i.e. collaborative network which means sharing knowledge, faster learning curve
You might find the video on the link below quite helpful Generally it would quite hard to use Web3.0 online marketing righ now.