Web 2.0 Wrapup

Having completed the prescribed exercises, I am left with a few observations.

First, theoretically these are all good things that foster greater participation online since it is easier than ever to jump in and comment on anything. It is easier than ever to see and hear from persons all around the world and maintain some form of communication with them.

Second, the level of discourse is what you might expect when anyone with internet access can say pretty much whatever they want. And while these are very egalitarian advances that level the proverbial playing field, they also lead to the kind of drek recently satirized in this to The Onion (courtesy of Nick):

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/local_idiot_to_post_comment_on


This phenomena has spawned a number of books/treatises devoted to how web2.0 is impacting the web and society. One of these, The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture by Andew Keen (http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Amateur-Internet-Killing-Culture/dp/0385520808) posits that "a sea of amateur content threatens to swamp the most vital information and how blogs often reinforce one's own views rather than expand horizons." Now this is obviously not true for everyone, clearly there are thoughtful and well reasoned analyses on any number of subjects, but my guess is that this constitutes a relatively small number of people when compared to the vast majority of witless polemics, crude argumentative jibes and personal attacks that make up the such a large portion of what transpires online. According to Keen most people eschew information from supposed experts in favor of like minded opinions expressed by other amateurs, looking not for truth but someone else's opinion that runs along the lines of their own and confirms their impressions, half formed ideas and prejudices. It's hard to see how this adds to the great global debate that was foreseen by the progenitors of these various technologies and sofware.


On the one hand having to face the capricious and overly market conscious publishing world of the last century kept countless works from seeing the light of day, many unfairly, but it also provided some sort of official review of the material which would include editing, fact checking and presumably an editorial sensibility that weeded out the truly ridiculous and worthless runs at literary notoriety.


So this new accessibility to the public eye should serve those who have been kept from publishing by the viccissitudes of the marketplace and allow those with talent or something of substance to say to hopefully find an audience. The downside of this is of course all the unfettered crap constantly coming your way the further you burrow into the web2.0 world.