DTP


 
Lively discussions on the graphic arts and publishing — in print or on the web


Go Back   Desktop Publishing Forum > General Discussions > The Corner Pub

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-22-2008, 08:35 AM   #1
Richard Waller
Member
 
Richard Waller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Goring-by-Sea, West Sussex UK
Posts: 732
Default What is Web 2.0

We do not seem to have discussed this here. These words are part from Wikipedia, with ideas from today's Telegraph.

Web 2.0 is a trend in World Wide Web technology and web design, a second generation of web-based communities and hosted services such as social-networking sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies, which aim to facilitate creativity, information sharing, collaboration, and sharing among users.

It is almost defined as the new era of the World Wide Web. The term became notable after the first O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004. Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users use webs.

A keystone is Wikipedia, the cult of the amateur, where anyone can contribute an entry, and anyone can edit or amend an entry. The threat is that a lot of irrelevant or misleading garbage will creep in but somehow this hasn't happened; probably because there is an amateur controlling body keeping an eye on things and deleting anything that people complain about that are too scurrilous.

Is it good that people can spend enormous amounts of time, perhaps a day a week, on games, and such things as Second Life, and World of Warcraft. How can the web be good if it so agressively degrades an idea so vital as friendship.

But will the web be good for global democracy (yes), equality (yes), freedom (yes). In fact the web has great liberating social potential. Do we agree?

   
__________________
Richard Waller
www.waller.co.uk
www.goring-by-sea.uk.com
Richard Waller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 09:32 AM   #2
George
Member
 
George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Waller View Post
A keystone is Wikipedia, the cult of the amateur, where anyone can contribute an entry, and anyone can edit or amend an entry. The threat is that a lot of irrelevant or misleading garbage will creep in but somehow this hasn't happened; probably because there is an amateur controlling body keeping an eye on things and deleting anything that people complain about that are too scurrilous.
Do you mean it hasn't crept in but actually flooded in?? I guess it depends on the subject matter one is reading on. But for the topics I have debated in the past, it's 90% garbage, and old smelly garbage at that. Then, maybe, it depends on one's point of view. No need to verify facts and studies that agree with a person's preconceived beliefs. But for any subject involving some controversy, this encyclopedia is worthless -- or so it is my personal experience.

George
George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 12:27 PM   #3
annc
Sysop
 
annc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Subtropical Queensland, Australia, between the mountains and the Coral Sea
Posts: 4,434
Default

Are you admitting to the world that you don't yet have a FaceBook or YouTube account, Richard?

   
__________________
annc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 01:01 PM   #4
Michael Rowley
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ipswich (the one in England)
Posts: 5,105
Default

Ann:

Quote:
Are you admitting to the world that you don't yet have a FaceBook or YouTube account
What are they? Are they likely to be any use to me, or to anyone?

   
__________________
Michael
Michael Rowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 01:28 PM   #5
Richard Waller
Member
 
Richard Waller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Goring-by-Sea, West Sussex UK
Posts: 732
Default

I check the Goring-by-Sea facebook thingy but it hasn't taken off. And I said before I hate video on the PC, probably because I have a slow broadband and no sound . . . .

But my blog I do enjoy adding trivia to.

   
__________________
Richard Waller
www.waller.co.uk
www.goring-by-sea.uk.com
Richard Waller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 01:47 PM   #6
annc
Sysop
 
annc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Subtropical Queensland, Australia, between the mountains and the Coral Sea
Posts: 4,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Rowley View Post
What are they? Are they likely to be any use to me, or to anyone?
FaceBook is a social networking site. You can interact with your friends, find people you went to school with or worked with in the past, answer quiz questions. Lots of stuff. YouTube is a video sharing network.

But Web 2.0 is much more than FaceBook and YouTube, and blogs (you do have a blog, don't you, Michael?). The Go2Web20 site lists many Web 2.0 sites (warning for Marjolein – it's Flash driven).

   
__________________
annc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 02:01 PM   #7
annc
Sysop
 
annc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Subtropical Queensland, Australia, between the mountains and the Coral Sea
Posts: 4,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Waller View Post
I check the Goring-by-Sea facebook thingy but it hasn't taken off.
Probably because FaceBook is a very personal thing. It's about people, not places.

I read recently that YouTube now uses as much bandwidth as the whole Internet used in 2000.

   
__________________
annc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 03:39 PM   #8
Michael Rowley
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ipswich (the one in England)
Posts: 5,105
Default

Ann:

Quote:
But Web 2.0 is much more than FaceBook and YouTube, and blogs (you do have a blog, don't you, Michael?)
I’m not much for social networking and not interested in videos via the Web, so it seems that I am not missing much. Web logs are mainly a means of advertising the logger’s opinions, though the ones that remain factual (as of course a log should be) are useful; if I kept one myself it would consist mainly of the Christmas? Humbug! type.

   
__________________
Michael
Michael Rowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2008, 07:20 AM   #9
Cristen Gillespie
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Richard: Is it good that people can spend enormous amounts of time, perhaps a day a week, on games, and such things as Second Life, and World of Warcraft. How can the web be good if it so agressively degrades an idea so vital as friendship.
Actually, from what I know about people playing WoW, the friendships are very real. It often involves friendships in the physical world playing together in the virtual world, like teams from different towns play sports and games, and it also often leads from virtual friends to friends in the physical world. And if I remember what all we did before the internet when we were in our 20s, I can't say that we spent our time virtuously or productively, or that people who play strategy games on the web are any less productive with their time than we are.

And while Wikipedia might not have the credibility of The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, young people are reading about more kinds of things than ever read encyclopedias, and I don't think anyone with good credentials is saying that Wikipedia gets it all wrong and our youth is being misled.

There isn't anything silly, stupid and a waste of time that my own generation didn't attempt, so YouTube is, from what I've seen, just another medium for the same old same old. Actually, looking at reality TV and those nasty game shows from way back (Love Connection?, Family Feud, etc), not to mention TV talk shows that get adults to bare all and tell all, I don't think the youth on YouTube at its worst is doing more than following adult examples of how to participate in this media-driven society. At least YouTube also appears to have some redeeming qualities, the opportunity to be more than our game shows, reality shows, and talk shows.

   
__________________
Cristen
Cristen Gillespie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2008, 08:28 AM   #10
Michael Rowley
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ipswich (the one in England)
Posts: 5,105
Default

Cristen:

Quote:
And while Wikipedia might not have the credibility of The Encyclopaedia Britannica
Actually, the reliability of the two is about the same (I think, about 90%). Of course, it is the 10% (or so) that’s worrying, so it it is not safe to rely on either as the sole source of information.

   
__________________
Michael
Michael Rowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Contents copyright 2004–2014 Desktop Publishing Forum and its members.