In my review of this article by Judith Pearce, I will explore how she discusses the concepts of Web 2.0, the Internet as platform and how they embrace the concept of user collaboration. Pearce discusses two particular National Library of Australia projects as examples of Web 2.0, Picture Australia and Australia Dancing, and their implications for the proposed new People Australia Service. I will also explore the author’s interpretation of the term Web 2.0 and how it relates to my understanding of this concept.
Pearce explains that term Web 2.0 was first used by Tim O’Reilly in 2004 to differentiate between the pre and post dot com crash worlds of the internet. Perhaps, it should be noted that Web 2.0 is really a story of two Tims. When Berners-Lee first created the World Wide Web, he intended it as a read-write medium and that it should be free, so anyone would be able to access and use it (Meadows-Klue, ¶3, 2007). So, surely the idea behind what we now call Web 2.0 was present at the internet’s inception, the concept of participation rather than just publishing.
Sites such as eBay, Amazon, Google, Flickr and Blogger are cited as examples of what best represents the Web 2.0 concept. It is noted by Pearce, that what makes these sites and, indeed, Web 2.0, is user participation. This and the element of trust. Pearce states that it is the public that takes the raw data used in these sites and, by the addition of tags, comments and their own uploads, convert it into ‘killer data.’ By fully utilising data, enhancing it and making it user friendly, you then get maximum use out of the resource. As Stelios, the creator of easyjet.com says, 'you outsource the work to the customer' (Noughton, 15. Easyjet.com, ¶5, 2006).
Also mentioned by Pearce is the availability of technologies such as Ajax to make web pages act like desktop applications. O’Reilly also makes the point that these ongoing improvements and the rise of the Free Software movement will see an increase in the number of open data projects using ‘innovation in assembly’, such as the ones mentioned by Pearce (O’Reilly, 2005, p. 4).
I feel that these projects, PictureAustralia and Australia Dancing, are both classic examples of Web 2.0 at work. For the first project, the Pearce describes how users add their own photos using Flickr. This confirms O’Reilly notion that sites like Flickr and del.icio.us have created a concept know as ‘folksonomy’, that is, self-categorising of content by the use of tags (O’Reilly, p. 2). Of course this lack of controlled vocabulary can cause problems of rediscovery for some items, as Pearce herself notes. Schmidt had evidence of some success with the adoption of a more inclusive classification (Schmidt, p. 1, 2006).
In her discussion of Australia Dancing, Pearce touches on another interesting Web 2.0 phenomenon: viral marketing. She notes that as soon as the site was opened, users were asking why they were not included in the directory. They have reinforced O’Reilly’s assertion that if it needs to be advertised, it isn’t Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, p. 2). Pearce also makes comparisons between this directory and Wikipedia. While O’Reilly states that “harnessing the collective intelligence” and having “enough eyeballs on it…” will ensure the content, Pearce stresses that biography is an art and a balanced approach to information is needed (O’Reilly, p. 2). She contends that while both can be edited by anyone, Australia Dancing does have registered users and is peer reviewed to preserve the integrity of its contents and avoid any ‘fatally flawed’ entries.
In conclusion, I have shown how Pearce describes that Web 2.0 is about interactive technologies. The projects she has selected to demonstrate her point are prime examples of ‘participation’ rather than the traditional ‘publishing’. She has drawn heavily from the work of Tim O’Reilly in her description of what Web 2.0 is and has used her examples to well demonstrate the future of libraries, by the use of new user-based technologies.
Bibliography
Meadows-Klue, D. (2007). Web 2.0 in the West End, and the tale of two Tims. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from Digital Strategy Consulting Website: http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/articles/2007/08/web_20_in_the_west_end_and_the.php
Noughton, J. (2006). Fifteen sites that changed the world. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from guardian.co.uk Website: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1843263,00.html
O’Reilly, T, (2005). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from O’Reilly Website: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1
Schmidt, P. (2006). Inducing Ontology from Flickr Tags. Retrieved August 25, 2008, http://www.semanticmetadata.net/hosted/taggingws-www2006-files/22.pdf
Pearce explains that term Web 2.0 was first used by Tim O’Reilly in 2004 to differentiate between the pre and post dot com crash worlds of the internet. Perhaps, it should be noted that Web 2.0 is really a story of two Tims. When Berners-Lee first created the World Wide Web, he intended it as a read-write medium and that it should be free, so anyone would be able to access and use it (Meadows-Klue, ¶3, 2007). So, surely the idea behind what we now call Web 2.0 was present at the internet’s inception, the concept of participation rather than just publishing.
Sites such as eBay, Amazon, Google, Flickr and Blogger are cited as examples of what best represents the Web 2.0 concept. It is noted by Pearce, that what makes these sites and, indeed, Web 2.0, is user participation. This and the element of trust. Pearce states that it is the public that takes the raw data used in these sites and, by the addition of tags, comments and their own uploads, convert it into ‘killer data.’ By fully utilising data, enhancing it and making it user friendly, you then get maximum use out of the resource. As Stelios, the creator of easyjet.com says, 'you outsource the work to the customer' (Noughton, 15. Easyjet.com, ¶5, 2006).
Also mentioned by Pearce is the availability of technologies such as Ajax to make web pages act like desktop applications. O’Reilly also makes the point that these ongoing improvements and the rise of the Free Software movement will see an increase in the number of open data projects using ‘innovation in assembly’, such as the ones mentioned by Pearce (O’Reilly, 2005, p. 4).
I feel that these projects, PictureAustralia and Australia Dancing, are both classic examples of Web 2.0 at work. For the first project, the Pearce describes how users add their own photos using Flickr. This confirms O’Reilly notion that sites like Flickr and del.icio.us have created a concept know as ‘folksonomy’, that is, self-categorising of content by the use of tags (O’Reilly, p. 2). Of course this lack of controlled vocabulary can cause problems of rediscovery for some items, as Pearce herself notes. Schmidt had evidence of some success with the adoption of a more inclusive classification (Schmidt, p. 1, 2006).
In her discussion of Australia Dancing, Pearce touches on another interesting Web 2.0 phenomenon: viral marketing. She notes that as soon as the site was opened, users were asking why they were not included in the directory. They have reinforced O’Reilly’s assertion that if it needs to be advertised, it isn’t Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, p. 2). Pearce also makes comparisons between this directory and Wikipedia. While O’Reilly states that “harnessing the collective intelligence” and having “enough eyeballs on it…” will ensure the content, Pearce stresses that biography is an art and a balanced approach to information is needed (O’Reilly, p. 2). She contends that while both can be edited by anyone, Australia Dancing does have registered users and is peer reviewed to preserve the integrity of its contents and avoid any ‘fatally flawed’ entries.
In conclusion, I have shown how Pearce describes that Web 2.0 is about interactive technologies. The projects she has selected to demonstrate her point are prime examples of ‘participation’ rather than the traditional ‘publishing’. She has drawn heavily from the work of Tim O’Reilly in her description of what Web 2.0 is and has used her examples to well demonstrate the future of libraries, by the use of new user-based technologies.
Bibliography
Meadows-Klue, D. (2007). Web 2.0 in the West End, and the tale of two Tims. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from Digital Strategy Consulting Website: http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/articles/2007/08/web_20_in_the_west_end_and_the.php
Noughton, J. (2006). Fifteen sites that changed the world. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from guardian.co.uk Website: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1843263,00.html
O’Reilly, T, (2005). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from O’Reilly Website: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1
Schmidt, P. (2006). Inducing Ontology from Flickr Tags. Retrieved August 25, 2008, http://www.semanticmetadata.net/hosted/taggingws-www2006-files/22.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment