Web 2.0 - mean anything to you?

In the wee small hours of Friday morning (4am to be precise) I will be taking part in a Skype telephone debate with some of the most forward-thinking US and Canadian proponents of blogging, podcasting and the ominous-sounding Web 2.0. The discussion is lead by Wesley Friar. Does Web 2.0 mean anything to us? Do these words make us jump with joy or turn our backs in bemusement? I would like to put your views forward in this online show to which thousands will listen. Please leave your comments here.

Comments

[David Muir]

I've never thought that Web 2.0 as a name was very helpful. All it seems to seems to suggest is that Web 2.0 is better in some way than Web 1.0 without helping to define either. It's like marketing speak, "New, improved Daz!"

A name like "Read/Write Web" at least gives a flavour of what it is describing although I suspect it doesn't cover everything that the technorati want to lump into Web 2.0.

I'm less worried about "blogging" and "podcasting". You can explain the etymology of theses words fairly easily and in doing so people at least get a vague notion of what they mean. I have more of a problem with "wiki" because explaining that it is Hawaiian for "quick" isn't a great deal of help in explaining what it does. However you didn't ask about wiki, so lets not go there. (Oops, too late!)

Some people worry that using jargon like this is designed to confuse people and keep those not in the know in the dark. As long as we explain ourselves to people who look confused I don't have a problem with calling a spade a spade. Blogging and podcasting are more or less in the public consciousness. More and more people are understanding what they represent and are using the words because they are a useful way to talk about these things. In fact, "podcast" was nominated as the Word of the Year by the New Oxford American Dictionary. I am not convinced however that Web 2.0 will ever reach that level of public understanding.

Not sure if this is helpful, but you asked for comments and it's either send a comment or do some "real" work and finish my Powerpoint presentation for tomorrow. :-)

[Steve O'Hear]

I think the term 'web 2.0' does serve a useful purpose. It has taken a bit of a hit lately by some of the big guns in the blogosphere but I still think it is helpful in defining a way of thinking about how the world wide web has evolved and can evolve.

In a recent article for the Guardian, I argued that web 2.0 has the potential to transform learning:

Like the web itself, the early promise of e-learning - that of empowerment - has not been fully realised. The experience of e-learning for many has been no more than a hand-out published online, coupled with a simple multiple-choice quiz. Hardly inspiring, let alone empowering. But by using these new web services, e-learning has the potential to become far more personal, social and flexible.

[Chris]

I meet with bemused grunts if I mention Web 2.0. Would a more descriptive term not be more user-friendly? Along the lines of "social software", perhaps? (Soc-web???)

BTW - hope you're not having to go out to work after this! ;-)

[Ewan McIntosh]

Other interesting comments over at the MFLE Blog here and here.

[David Muir]

Is Web 2.0 an Humpty Dumpty word? It seems to have such broad application that it can mean whatever the user wants it to mean and so means very little to others as a result.

[Ewan McIntosh]

But do people make the same shishi when it comes to talking about the web, internet, email.... Do they not realise/care that the web and email function on the internet? And should that be Internet or internet? And at the end of the day, have any of these anomolies stopped people using the tools? No, I'd say.

[David Muir]

Sorry, I got side tracked by Humpty Dumpty. I meant to comment on your comment Ewan. The examples you give in your comment are good examples. "the web, internet, email..." These terms are simple to understand and at least related to the thing they refer to in a way that people can grasp. Web 2.0 is neither simple nor descriptive in my opinion. That in itself is not necessarily a problem. In education we use unhelpful words all the time to describe complex ideas... but we don't necessarily expect people outside education to know what we are talking about. So, we could use Web 2.0 if we want... just don't expect everyone to understand what we are talking about.

"have any of these anomolies stopped people using the tools? No, I'd say." Absolutely. The tools that the term Web 2.0 describe will be used what ever we call them ...if they are useful - and there are loads of useful things under the Web 2.0 umbrella.

[Simon]

Isn't it simple? To me Web 2.0, simply means the web is going two way. My wife understood what I meant when I used the term on Friday after the lecture at Jordanhill. I think the name's good. To reduce possible confusion maybe it needs a tag line?

Web 2.0: Write access to the internet
(A wee bit techy?)

Web 2.0: Let the world speak
(A wee bit left wing?!!)

:-)

[David Muir]

Or Web 2.0: The Next Generation!

Make it so! (Or Make it sew?)