[Air-l] Web 2.0 - "the machine is us?"

[Ulf-Dietrich Reips]

Ok, so we agree it is NOT a new paradigm. Meaning that the 1.0 to 2.0 
step naming suggestion is a Microsoft like overblown 
pseudo-signification marketing attempt. Sure, "Web 1.7" wouldn't 
catch on as much. We also agree that there is progress, and that some 
of the progress is just necessary follow-up from sheer growth. We 
simply didn't need what is seen as helpful now.
Do we agree that the basis for HTML already was the idea of 
separating form and content? And do we agree that early on the Web 
wasn't entirely built in static Web pages (remember Frontier? --> 
http://dave.editthispage.com/historyOfFrontier )? And do we agree 
that the Web has many more functions than just searching?
Personally, I see one stream of development, with great ideas rocking 
the waters here and there and then. Looking forward to what comes 
next!
--u

At 23:17 Uhr +0000 13.2.2007, Alexis Turner wrote:
>No, I believe the original way of finding information on the web involved 1)
>search engines and 2) static hyperlinks...generally built on static 
>pages (ie -
>they change rarely, and are updated by people who can write HTML).
>
>But I believe new methods allow more sophisticated ways to search for
>information.  A site like del.icio.us, for instance, that employs 
>tagging by discrete entities
>(individual, identifiable humans) allows one more fine-grained control of the
>search process.  Instead of searching Altavista's picture of the entire web,
>you can instead narrow down on 10 individuals whom you have found to be
>consistently interesting and follow their linking patterns over a long period
>of time.  In doing so, you become exposed to new terms, and friends of theirs,
>which allow you to create new searches.  Likewise, an increased emphasis on
>standards (XML, separation of form from content, etc), means that a myriad of
>such sites can be more easily accessed by a *single* home-grown software
>solution, thus automating a large-scale search/parse.  10 years ago, 
>there were
>a thousandth of the pages.  I could do it by hand.  Now?....
>
>In other words, there are simply more options, and 2.0 provides us with tools
>that can better respond to the size the web has become.  We have become more
>sophisticated in our understanding of how to use the web, and, in 
>turn, we have
>begun developing methods that can make use of that.  The realization that form
>and content must be separate was something we had to learn from getting wrong
>at first.  That is the knowledge that comes from experience, and why 
>1.0 could not
>have anticipated some of what we see today.
>
>Is this completely new?  Of course not - it is a refinement to how a creative
>searcher would have done things 8 years ago, but it makes it obvious to a
>larger number of people, among other things, and it makes it easier, which I
>don't think can be overstated.  It is a signal that the web
>is maturing - we are becoming more aware of how to navigate it 
>successfully (and
>unsuccessfully).  As the "article" (and I do use that term loosely) said - I
>don't think it is a new paradigm, I think it is a more nuanced and evolved way
>of approaching the idea of searching. This is where I think the idea of "Web
>2.0" is vaguely hoax-like, and *certainly* overblown - it is NOT a new
>paradigm.  It is NOT a platform.  But none of those criticisms should imply
>that it is entirely useless.  It is a recognition of a refinement in our
>understanding, and that in and of itself is pretty welcome in my mind.
>-Alexis
>
>
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Ulf-Dietrich Reips wrote:
>
>::You there write: "The incredible thing is that it offers a radically new
>::approach to managing and finding information. Web 2.0 offers both 
>information
>::and tools, if you will, where Web 1.0 offered only information. Methods like
>::XML, RSS, AJAX, and tagging, sites like del.icio.us or netvibes - 
>these offer
>::methods more powerful than search engines and hyperlinks for understanding,
>::and finding, how information is connected. They improve the ambient
>::findability of relevant material, communities, peers, and ideas."
>::So, wouldn't this mean that "Web 2.0" started with Google search? Or ...
>::wait... it started with Yahoo catalogues. No ... wait ... it started with
>::Netscape inventing Livescript (now Javascript). No, hey, it must 
>have started
>::with the implementation of Web *forms*. Uh oh, and soon we are in 
>TBL's office
>::in Geneva looking at the first Web browser...
>::--u
>::