Although the sound of dial up internet will forever be ingrained in my mind, this is one of the few reminders of Web 1.0 that I could gather. So I found myself asking, exactly how does Web 2.0 differ from its predecessor?
A fundamental understanding of this question led to the answer that it has to do with Web users and software developers. Whilst Web 1.0 and 2.0 share technical specifications, the manner in which users engage with each differs significantly. Jenkins furthers this notion, claiming that the transition between Web 1.0 and 2.0 represented a shift in emphasis from technological platforms to significance of cultural practices (Jenkins, 2007, online).
Existing through the nineties (Syken, 2000, pg. 35), Web 1.0 was a client-server facility, which provided individuals with a strictly one-way media form. The contents of the Web were primarily supplied by multinational corporations, who claimed ownership of all published (Jenkins, 2007, online).
Comparable with this is Web 2.0, which strongly encourages user participation and collaboration. Consequently, whilst Web 2.0 was build upon the interactive facilities of its predecessor, the manner in which users consume the web differs greatly. This transformation in user role is reflected through Axel Bruns’ term ‘produsage,’ which defines users of the web as active participants in creating and reproducing material, of others, on the web (Bruns, 2007, online).This definition in effect indicates that Web 2.0 provides its users with a base for individual expression through DIY media and collaboration, which Jenkins believes will lead to eventual collective intelligence (2007, online). This is clearly demonstrated through examples including open-source software, social networking websites like Facebook and Wikipedia, the collaboratively created online encyclopaedia.
To be honest it is examples like the two latter provided above that prevent me, and I presume many others of this generation, from recalling Web 1.0. Since these functions of the internet have existed the majority of our early teen and adult lives, they have become staples in our daily lives – something the majority take for granted. Sites such as Wikipedia are frequently visited by students (though obviously never acknowledged!) as a starting point for gathering general information on a topic of interest. Whilst many academics claim that Wikipedia provides students with uncorroborated information, James Surowiecki, author of the ‘The Wisdom of Crowds,’ claimed that large groups of people are inherently smarter than an elite few (Surowiecki, 2005, pg. 173). Furthermore social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, which were created around the time I entered high school, fast became a central means of maintaining contact with friends and family and quietly a means of ranking social standing – calculated by the number of friends one person has.
As a result of the continuing changing face of the World Wide Web, many of Gen Y can barely recall characteristics of Web 1.0, merely understanding what is current – Web 2.0. However it is likely that in future this situation will repeat itself when Web 2.0’s successor is launched and the memory of Web 2.0 is lost to whatever is in existence.
Bibliography
Bruns, A. 2007. Produsage: A Working Definition. http://produsage.org/produsage (accessed April 10, 2008).
Jenkins, H. 2007 Participartory Culture as a Commonplace practice. http://zero.newassignment.net/filed/henry_jenkins_participatory_culture_commonplace_pr
Surowiecki, J. 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: NY Ingram International Inc.Syken, B. 2000. An Evangelist for Free Software. Time Magazine 3: 35. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,961,00.html (accessed April 10, 2008).
No comments:
Post a Comment