O’Reilly emphasizes a clear distinction between Web 1.0 and
Web 2.0 being the participation of users that “the service automatically gets
better the more people use it.”
Bit Torrent users bring their own resources as each is also a server and
the “network of downloaders” is harnessed.
Wikipedia is built on the “unlikely notion” that anyone can
contribute.
In the section called the Architecture of Participation, it
notes that a key lesson of Web 2.0 is that “users add value” but then goes on
to say that only a small number of users actually go to the trouble of adding
that value. Thus, “Web 2.0
companies set inclusive defaults for aggregating user data and building value
as a side-effect of ordinary use of the application.”
For some reason I started to think about Aldous Huxley’s
warning of big brother and the world he painted in Brave New World. It has been some time since I read the
book so my analysis may be off, but that book outlined a future in which the
general populace did not contribute but that all decisions were made for
people. I began to consider
that this new generation that expects to contribute would never lead us to such
a world. But if it really is only
a small number who do contribute, perhaps we’re not safe from living in a world
where decisions are made for us or where we inadvertently contribute to
decisions that we are not aware are even being made because of our actions.
I do remember studying in Gordon’s class about the wisdom of
crowds and the idea that better ideas are usually the result when more heads
are brought together.
That’s a hopeful thought for our future if Web 2.0 really is
relying on a wisdom of the crowd.
The whole idea of Web 2.0 really turns the world upside
down. It’s very different from our past patriarchal society. “The boss” was always a man who had
tight control. Remember Father
Knows Best? We really believed that
he did. I can see room for
feminist studies in this move to Web 2.0.
Is there a change in the gender of who is making decisions when
crowdsourcing is used?
