The primary difference between Web 2.0 and 1.0 is the role played by the user. Rather than a passive function through one way information distribution and communication, users play an interactive part in what and how information is distributed.
The terms 1.0 and 2.0 have been widely criticised for their literal meaning linking to a radical new development in the technical side of the web, rather than the more gradual, continuing movements and shifts. Axel Bruns quotes O’Reilly (2006) and his definition of Web 2.0 which suggests it, “is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform”.
Users have the ability to create, collaborate, manipulate, collude, combine and in some cases completely alter the context of content online. There is also an increasing movement towards individual involvement through the growth in Blogs, Wiki, social networking platforms, forums, information sharing methods and access to diverse ranges of audiences.
Bruns and other authors he quotes, suggest this phenomena as ‘software-prosthesis’ which is focused towards the expansion of human capacity in a socially collaborative manner, but in the structured online environment.
Axel Bruns introduces the concept of the ‘produser’ in his book, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, which suggests that the definition between the roles of ‘consumer’, ‘user’ and ‘producer’ are no longer clear in Web 2.0. He states that “users are always already necessarily also producers of the shared knowledge base, regardless of whether they are aware of this role.” (Bruns, 2008) He suggests that there is now this new hybrid, the ‘produser’.
Produsers utilise Web 2.0 for its interactivity. They have opinions to voice, knowledge to share and a strong online presence.
Web 1.0 had a stronger focus on information distribution. Websites were created simply to display information from producer to user, with little or no interaction between the two. Online interaction was limited to email which took users away from the site and had minimal continuity or benefits for relationship building. Web 2.0 has adopted synergy and developed methods that mimic face-to-face communication as much as possible with the obvious temporal and geographic constraints of the users.
The most difficult part of analysing Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, is in the fact that the online environment is forever changing and developing. It is yet (and is questionable if it will ever) reach it’s potential and maintain status quo. With new technologies, concepts, abilities, connectivity and needs within society, Web 2.0 could soon be surpassed by an even more interactive and socially beneficial trend.
No comments:
Post a Comment