[Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0

[Lane DeNicola]

Alexis: not MY seven points--Tim O'Reilly's!  I've rarely used the
term myself without specifically meaning his conceptualization (recent
hyperbole notwithstanding).  I agree, too, that those seven points are
"very, very specifically business oriented," though I may perceive the
workings behind that a bit differently (I'm a "he," by the way).

As a programmer in the late '90s, I came to love "the animal books" of
O'Reilly & Associates, technical publications that focused largely on
open source technologies (Jeff Friedl's "Mastering Regular
Expressions," now in its third edition, is to this day one of the best
technical volumes I've ever read).  Their stripped down layout,
engaging prose, and sharp handling of typically dry topics was a
perfect complement to the DIY/toolset mentality of the FOSS community.

I perceive the "corporate turn" (at O'Reilly Media and elsewhere) as a
long-term strategy within the FOSS community to dispel the belief that
open source was/is not appropriate to a serious commercial
environment.  I still see them struggling with that perception today
(thus the business orientation).  I'd agree with Hugemusic's
explanation, that "the *term* Web 2.0 was created as a branding
strategy for corporations to exploit the *phenomenon* of Web 2.0."

Despite all the talk (including Tim O'Reilly's) about business models
etc., I also see the most analytically relevant aspect of the Web 2.0
phenomenon on an axis orthogonal to the commercial/non-profit
dichotomy.  In an interview in last week's Wired:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/04/timoreilly_0413?currentPage=all

Tim O'Reilly states that "One of the big changes at the heart of web
2.0 is the shift from the creation of software artifacts, which is
what the PC revolution was about, to the creation of software
services."

This seems to me to support Christian's suggestion that "internet
research needs to take a look at the political economy of web 2.0,"
specifically in terms of the implied shift from an industry that's
seen as "manufacturing goods" (software) to one that "provides
services" (communities, hosted apps, etc.).  "Resources" (in
particular bandwidth) is perhaps yet another matter, but whether we're
talking a Google-sized commercial enterprise or a state-subsidized
community portal, it's that shift from goods to services that I think
is implicit in the Web 2.0 moniker (and is an especially telling part
of O'Reilly's definition).

-- 
Lane DeNicola
Doctoral Candidate | Dept. of Science & Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
http://www.nacresky.com/lad
Tried the Science Studies Search Engine? <http://www.nacresky.com/ssse>