Having read 'Reader 1' which felt to me like a foreign language I decided if I was to complete this task I would have to do my own research and find a way of understanding and interpreting the term.
From my own independant research and also the advice from other blogs I found this youtube video which opened up my eyes to the world of Web 2.0.
Web 2.0 explained
Having started with no concept of Web 2.0 I sat down with a blank peice of paper which suprisingly in no time turned into a brainstorm of ideas and questions evoked by Web 2.0 and the task in hand.
It is incredible to think how much social networking has developed in the past few years and the enormity of Web 2.0 let alone comprehend the concept of Web 3.0 which I'm sure is not too far in the future.
I hadn't ever stopped to think about how much I use and also rely on Web 2.0, checking Facebook and Instagram daily and using Google and Tripadvisor both for personal and professional reasons.
My initial reaction is that I feel a sense of guilt that I was so apprehensive to blog and yet have myself used hundreds of blogs online for my own problem solving when needing to fix technical issues or looking for advice. Gruber (2007) suggests that there are three components of an online system that support collective intelligence and the benefits that might be gained from the idea that in a Web 2.0 platform like Facebook, the fact that there is over 500 million members makes it the valuable and useful tool for social interaction and sharing that it has become today:
1. A social system, supported by computing and communication
technology, which generates self-service problem solving
discussions on the Internet.
2. A search engine that is good at finding questions and answers in
this body of content. Google, for example, is very good at finding a
message in a public forum in which someone has asked a
question similar to one's query.
3. Intelligent users, who know how to formulate their problems in
queries that the search engine can match to online
question/answer pairs. In addition, users help the system learn
when they provide intelligent feedback about which
query/document pairs were effective at addressing their problems’
(Gruber 2008, p. 3).
Web 2.0 platforms generally provide the user with all three of Gruber’s processes.
I can relate to all 3 components mentioned above and as I discusssed previously Gruber also notes the use of Web 2.0 for problem solving, advice and discussion.
The ongoing debate which is featured in many news articles and online discussions is whether or not social networking is a help or a hindrance and ultimately a good or bad way of communicating.
With every argument there is two sides. Whilst reading various articles and opinions it is clear that peoples thoughts are very divided and it is therefore necessary to look into different points of view when discussing the use of Web 2.0.
In the article below, the journalist is defending the use of social networking after it has been under scrutiny by the Press. He comments:
"Take Tavi Gevinson, a 17-year-old student who founded and edits Rookie, a site that features articles by and for young women. She says online socialising is "the opposite of isolation – it's all about connection. I've made some of my closest friends online, through blogging communities."
Teachers who understand this insight have begun to transform their classrooms. One day I visited the class of Lou Lahana, a computer teacher at a school in a low-income area. I met one student who was frequently in trouble, with a bad truancy record and rock-bottom grades – a classic drop-out risk. But in Lahana's class, he had discovered a talent using 3D SketchUp software. The student began to produce gorgeous renderings of famous buildings, which Lahana posted online for the world to see."I could be an architect," he told me, as I watched him sketch a version of New York's Guggenheim Museum on screen. "This is the first thing I've seen where I thought, OK, I get this, I love this – I could do this."
Social Networking Article
The article presents the question, Is Web 2.0 a succesful marketing tool and beneficial in finding us employment in professional careers?
Personally I use sites such as Facebook and Twitter to keep up to date on auditions, classes and castings. Many performers add a show reel to youtube and can post this on the web to present themselves to agents and other professionals. This has proved successful for performers I know personally and has given them the chance to get a job overseas. Some agents also require a show reel and thus in this industry we are strongly encouraged to use Web 2.0 - even if without knowing!!
During college we had a guest masterclass every week with leading choreographers and dancers working in the field. Often they would tell us to add them on facebook for any job opportunies, training classes and if we needed to ask any advice about the industry. As mentioned in 'Reader1', one of the many studies into the effectiveness of Web 2.0 in building and developing communities (Feenberg & Bakardjieva 2004) identified that Web 2.0 allowed communities to develop beyond their ‘existing professional networks’ and offer a ‘social space for people, strangers and almost strangers with diverse backgrounds to come together as equals, as generators of ideas, to deliberate and act collectively’
(Feenberg & Bakardjieva 2004, p. 38).
Another question this rises, which I think is a huge issue on the Web, is Choice. Do we have a choice of the content which is uploaded about us on the Web? Are we in control?
In this instance I am going to refer to Facebook. We can as both producer and consumer control what is seen on our own profile and whether we choose to accept friend requests or show information. However we can't stop or control what other people post on their own public pages. I have personally had photos uploaded onto Facebook which can appear when you scroll through an album on a friends page which you would not deem suitable to put up on Facebook. Can this effect your professionalism if a colleague or employer were to come accross this information?
An issue Web 2.0 presents is exactly this. How you are perceived on a social networking site and in the flesh are completely different experiences. Is this collaboration of sites making people hide behind a computer screen rather than personally interact? Also the way a conversation is written can be very different to how it would be spoken. The tone of voice, rapport and eye contact are important personal skills which enable you to build a relationship when conversing face to face. This issue was also mentioned in the article earlier from the Guardian:
In a recent essay for the Guardian, the novelist Jonathan Franzen bemoaned online socialising, arguing that it was creating a uniquely shallow and trivial culture, making kids unable to socialise face to face. Then the American comedian Louis CK proclaimed on TV that he wouldn't give his daughters cellphones for fear they wouldn't develop empathy.
Due to the blurred lines between producer and consumer the personal information displayed on Web 2.0 is essentially unfinished due to the unlimited interaction and communication between reader and creator. It is constantly changing and updating.
Bruns concept of 'Produsage' describes this idea about continuity within Web 2.0:
Bruns comments that artefacts generated are no longer products in a traditional sense: they are always unfinished, and continually under development – such development is evolutionary, iterative, and palimpsestic.
This leads me to ultimate question. Will Web 2.0 continue to be a part of my professional practice?
The answer to this is Yes. From now on I will definitely evaluate what I am commenting and sharing however Web 2.0 will continue to be a tool which I consider beneficial in my personal life and professional career.
