[Air-l] Web 2.0 - "the machine is us?"
ureips at genpsy.unizh.ch
Thu Feb 15 08:36:17 PST 2007
good to see that we agree on so much. In fact, I
feel we totally agree in what was at the core of
At 21:12 Uhr +0000 14.2.2007, Alexis Turner wrote:
> To be
>honest, it seems like you are hell bent on getting me to agree to some sort of
>slippery slope scenario where I ultimately agree that the modern
>iteration of the web is exactly the same as a library card catalog.
No, this is not in my intention. I am simply
trying to throw in enough examples that show the
changes in the Web we have been seeing recently
are not a paradigm shift (that silly 1 2
marketing scam) as we already agreed on, but in
good continuation of earlier great developments,
functions and ideas.
>believe that and I don't plan on agreeing to it
>that easily. If I gain 1 pound,
>I'm still thin. If I gain another. Still thin.
>I start to look a little jowly
>after 20, though. The web, likewise, looks a little different after so many
>years of development. Why get hung up on terminology...1.0 v. 2.0? Has our
>approach matured, or hasn't it?
Sure, yes, of course! I wouldn't call you or the
Web "fat", though. Universally binary maybe ;-)
>kind of scenario would it be possible for a
>person to use the web without having
>to find something?
As an aside: the term "surfing" was explicitly
used for what people do on the Web, because it
semantically contains rather large portions of
drifting aimlessly, being shoveled where the
waves go, being blown away etc., and not
searching with a clear goal.
Thanks for pointing out that most activities on
the Web involve at least some searching, and may
it be for the mouse arrow on the screen...
>So, in other words, your only real complaint is the actual terminology "web
The terminology *and* what is associated with it:
Brainwashing by dichotomizing the multitude of
developments, ideas, functions, applications,
communities that make up the Web. Degrading so
many great ideas by comparing them to a subset
and suggesting that the subset is fundamentally
better. Take the Google (search engine) example
again that supposedly is 1.0. 2.0 talk would
suggest that it is backwardish to develop or use
something like Google. But this is not true, of
Social software is a relatively new concept, as
is the Blog. But there are many many others, just
think and remember. Off the hat: listserv,
Gopher, forms, Dejanews, The Well, irc, Amazon,
open source, Yahoo!, VRML, Panoramas, plugin,
Netscape, PGP, top level domain expansion, Skype,
PDF, spiders, open access, wireless, paperball,
meta search, DHTML, https, fax2mail, PHP,
Webcam... definitely not a 1.0_2.0able
>Does that mean that you do or do not believe that certain tasks are
>approached with a different mindset or set of tools...on a large scale?
Well, here we are - as has been mentioned before,
we are having this discussion via a plain old -
and I would like to say: very well maintained! -
*listserv*. Oh, hey, throw some tags at me ;-)
>how significant is that difference? (In other words, how many pounds does the
>web have to gain before you feel that it no
>longer looks exactly the same as it
It never looks the same. Part of the reason is
that I have only two eyes. Eye 1.0 and eye 2.0 ;-)
>Thanks for the good discussion....
Same here --u
PD Dr. Ulf-Dietrich Reips
Past President, Society for Computers
in Psychology (http://scip.ws)
Editor, International Journal of
Internet Science (http://www.ijis.net)
8050 Zürich, Switzerland
iScience portal (http://psych-iscience.unizh.ch/)
More information about the Air-L