At school we were always advised not to use Wikipedia when doing research due to the fact that it can be inaccurate because anyone can change the information. In fact, we were actually told off if we had used it to obtain information. At the time I did not give this comment a second thought and I have steered well clear of the site ever since. I accepted that my teacher was correct and I did not question what I was told to do. After going through the reader and researching web 2.0 I realise that there is so much more to sites such as Wikipedia than a handful of inaccurate information. However, I can see the theory that if anyone can edit or add information then there are no guarantees that it is correct unless we fully trust the knowledge of every user. While one of the main principles of web 2.0 is linked to trusting other users, there is a difference between valuing everyone’s opinion and accepting factual information. Therefore I can see why my school was wary of us researching on Wikipedia but the reason behind it was never properly explained.
I then decided that it would be fitting to research web 2.0 on a web 2.0 site itself. So Wikipedia was my first port of call. It went through most of the principles, concepts and characteristics of web 2.0 which are all explained in the reader and additional reading. However, the section I found most interesting was the criticism. I would recommend reading all the information on Wikipedia on this topic but this is a section which made me think more critically;
‘In terms of Web 2.0's social impact, critics such as Andrew Keen argue that Web 2.0 has created a cult of digital narcissism and amateurism, which undermines the notion of expertise by allowing anybody, anywhere to share and place undue value upon their own opinions about any subject and post any kind of content, regardless of their particular talents, knowledge, credentials, biases or possible hidden agendas. Additionally, Sunday Times reviewer John Flintoff has characterized Web 2.0 as "creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity: uninformed political commentary, unseemly home videos, embarrassingly amateurish music, unreadable poems, essays and novels", and also asserted that Wikipedia is full of "mistakes, half truths and misunderstandings".[45]’
Wikipedia, Web 2.0 (online), last modified September 2010. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 (accessed 28th September 2010)
This shows that there are also disadvantages of web 2.0 and ever increasing technology. In my opinion, as long as the user is aware of the disadvantages and dangers that are presented then an increase in technology can only be a good thing. While we should value everyone’s opinion that comments on a video, posts a blog, or updates their status on facebook, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is correct. In an ideal world, we should use that opinion to shape and develop our own ideas and the beauty of it is that we can discard it from our mind if we don’t like it. It seemed ironic to be searching for information about Wikipedia on Wikipedia but it seemed a fitting approach.
One of the first things that occurred to me after going through the reader on web 2.0 was that I have never even considered the possibility that new sites such as facebook and blog sites would be of a different generation to any other sites where there is a clear boundary between the creator and the reader. I understand all the concepts of web 2.0; that the internet is used as a platform, that the roles of reader and creator are merged and it enables a ‘many to many’ approach where millions of people can talk to each other over a blog, a video on you tube, or a social networking site. It is clear that all these factors help people to broaden their own knowledge and ideas by being more able to hear the opinions of others on the internet. It is amazing to think that you could now have a relationship with someone over a social networking site who is sitting half way across the world. However, is it not slightly concerning that anyone else using web 2.0 or looking at facebook could know as much about your relationship as you do? In order for something to be private, you have to actively make it private, if not it is there for the whole world to see. I think that some users forget how many people can see what you write as you feel like you are just writing to one person and this could possibly cause more problems than it is worth.
Clearly web 2.0 has altered the way people work and it must affect nearly every industry in some way. One of the ways it has helped the dancing/performing industry is that it has facilitated the communication between employers and potential employees. It is now possible for an employer to search for someone on the internet (most probably using Google, a web 2.0 search engine) and then they are likely to find their facebook page, blog or you tube videos of their work. This could then lead to that person getting a job purely based on their involvement in web 2.0 sites and how they have portrayed themselves over the internet. This concept seems an invaluable advantage of the new and developing web technologies and communications.
According to the information, this new web generation encourages social interaction. However, is this actually the case? It may well encourage virtual interaction but not physical social interaction with another person. Social networking sites are extremely popular and easy to use but more time spent interacting on the internet means less time spent interacting socially. In my opinion it is more important that future generations develop social and ‘people’ skills rather than how to discuss a youtube video with someone in Australia. Sometimes I think that social networking sites are a way for people to hide behind something and block out their insecurities. Surely this means that they will find it harder to talk to someone face to face if they are more used to talking in a chat room where they are in the comfort of their own home, safely behind their laptop and they do not have to be judged on their physical appearance if they don’t want to. In effect you can be virtually whoever you want to be, which again poses a danger of people saying they are someone they are not. The gravity of this danger is seen through cases of paedophiles talking to children and interactive sites give another opportunity for them to look at and talk to children.
It is clear that web 2.0 has changed the way the world works and if this can change our lives so much then surely a further increase in technology would change them even more. Technology is always developing so surely there will be a third web generation coming soon? When I researched this on the internet I found that there are various ideas on what is next for the web. These included; a merging of the internet world with the real world and an even more intelligent web which is virtually like a personal assistant by providing exact answers to your questions rather than a list of websites which might contain the answer you are looking for. I found the following idea particularly interesting;
‘Eventually you might be able to ask your browser open questions like "where should I go for lunch?" Your browser would consult its records of what you like and dislike, take into account your current location and then suggest a list of restaurants.’
Strickland. J, 2008 How web 3.0 will work (online), how stuff works.com, available from http://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-30.htm (accessed 30th September 2010)
