Archive for February, 2008

Web 2.0 Potentials

February 28, 2008

The Potentials of Web 2.0


The concept of Web ‘2.0’ has no actual defining boundaries as such, as O’Reilly highlights, it has ‘a gravitational core’ (O’Reilly 2005) and therefore its development has been somewhat divided, allowing for a wide range of applications across the Web to meet different criteria of the Web 2.0 concept.

This has contributed hugely to the development of the Web as all of these online applications share a common Web presence in that they all have the capability to reach a mass audience of Internet users. This therefore suggests that Web giants such as Google and Facebook, who are looking to capitalise upon this social platform of restoration of the Web, as a tool for personal independence, can do so by developing systems that share this common goal. This ultimately will lead to powerful alliances being made with Internet users worldwide.

These alliances are made stronger by user-participation, whereby the submissions of photos to Facebook for example, or videos that are uploaded to Youtube effectively add more and more to the businesses worth. This therefore means that we may be entering a new era, an era in which we realise the full potentials of Web 2.0, where data (such as photos and videos) acts as a value equivalent, where value is in a nutshell, power.

This power, driven by the vast quantities of user content submission, has influenced the heavyweights of the Web, powerful services such as Google, Yahoo, Youtube and Facebook to take primary control throughout, leading to a complex web of corporate domination being woven across the World Wide Web.

Web 2.0 Potentials

February 28, 2008

The Potentials of Web 2.0


Facebook is without a doubt the latest Web 2.0 phenomenon to hit the Web and its rising social empowerment. Similar to MySpace, these online social networks allow for manifestation of virtual networks to occur on a greater scale then ever before, with the size of these virtual communities only being limited by the size of the Web itself.

What these networks allow for so effectively is a user presence within a virtual community, substantiated by a user-generated profile in the form of a Webpage. Once these profiles are generated by the user they then become networked by means of a mutual ‘friendship’ system, which allows for a social community to form in cyberspace around the foundations of a virtual social network, stored within the Website.

In the case of Facebook, all it is a single entity that contains a virtual network of users, forming social communities that exists within the physical architecture of the Internet. These networks have grown at a rapid pace by successfully incorporating other Web 2.0 features such as blogging and photo sharing as mentioned earlier, as well internal messaging systems.

These features not only allow for profiles to become more enhanced but make communication across these networks far more engaging and appealing as the amount of information increases. The information and influence Facebook has at its fingertips is incredible

Web 2.0 Potentials

February 28, 2008

The Potentials of Web 2.0

What Web 2.0 has allowed for in maximising the Internet as a platform for social opportunity, is most significantly demonstrated by the amount of evolutionary developments that have taken place. Most notably is the ‘architecture of participation’, which has contributed highly to the huge rise in sites such as Facebook, Flickr, Blogger, Wikipedia and MySpace.

What Web 2.0 is doing through this system of user contribution and development, is allowing for Internet users to not just have an easy to use and developed Web space, but a powerful Web presence. The strongest example of this is in ‘blogging’, whereby Internet users worldwide are no longer simply publishing material but are generating their own media to be consumed by the masses.

Through bloggings ‘architecture of participation’, the Webs information content is being somewhat decentralised, as a greater amount of Web users create their own contextual media, generating a form of user empowerment. This is a clear example of how the concept of Web 2.0 is adapting the Web for use as a platform.

Although blogging is proving to be an influential platform for social opportunity it is not the only way that the World Wide Web is looking to ‘harness collective intelligence’. Flickr, a photo sharing site that is designed through XML and the idea of a Semantic Web, allows users to share their photos online, as well as being able to label these photos with data to personalise them. A system that has effectively been used in the online social networking websites of Facebook and MySpace. Another notable Web 2.0 social platform is Youtube, which has successfully pioneered the uses of Flash and its video codec feature.

Web 2.0 Potentials

February 26, 2008

Photo by kid.mercury at
www.flickr.com/photos/11399277@N06/1127902519/

Web 2.0 Potentials

February 22, 2008

Web 2.0


A fundamental concept in relation to Web 2.0 is what O’Reilly suggested as ‘harnessing collective intelligence’, an innovative quality that Web 1.0 companies don’t have.
A key insight into the Web as a whole, after the infamous dot-com bubble burst was made by Web pioneer Dale Dougherty, who concluded that the Web was far from having ‘crashed’ and that the importance of the Web after the dot-com bubble was greater than ever.

He noted that the companies that had somehow managed to survive the collapse all seemed to have certain things in common. After pursuing this idea he concluded that the dot-com bubble collapse could have been the catalyst marking some form of Web turning point. This turning point was soon to be recognised as Web 2.0.

These online giants are clear examples of an elite group of global corporations who were able to pioneer the creation of user alliance through a commercialised approach, capturing the very social ethos of what the early Internet was all about. This commercial success has allowed for a considerable amount of Web presence, which in turn has laid the foundations for many smaller businesses to look to build upon. This is highlighted with the countless amount of clones of the commercial behemoth Amazon and its retail model present at this point in time.

These foundations however are not the only door these corporate entities pushed open, in ‘harnessing collective intelligence’ they were able to offer not just physical offerings but intangible services, services that as proven by the early Internet, would cause a mass of users to be waiting on the horizon. A theory supported by Howard Rheingold.

Web 2.0 Potentials

February 22, 2008

Web 2.0


Similar to how the US, China and Europe are all contributing to shaping the future of the Internet’s architecture through coercive powers, the World Wide Web is under the same transformation from a basic Web standard to a much more intelligent social platform. This platform has developed an organic quality, whereby it is continuously having its content and service improved through the participation of Web users.

This newer version of the Web provides the platform for the concept known as Web 2.0. It is these changes that are shaping the World Wide Web as we know it, but this time Governments are not in control of these changes but the Web giants that provided the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. These global behemoths are the forefront, include Google, Yahoo, eBay and Amazon.

The term Web 2.0 refers not to an actual technology in itself, but a philosophical conceptualisation on the use of different Web technologies designed to enhance and optimise the World Wide Web. This concept focuses on the use of the Web as a social platform, whereby different services are made available and user potential embraced, ultimately allowing for a collective intelligence to be harnessed.

This continuous process involving Web users allows for content and service to be continuously improved. Key examples of companies that pioneered this concept of Web 2.0 that have grown into heavyweight Web behemoths are Google, Yahoo, eBay and Amazon, all of which are recognised survivors of the dot-com bubble bursting.

The Politics of Internet Control

February 14, 2008

Article Extract:

‘Since it was developed by Pentagon-funded researchers in the 1960s and 1970s, the decentralized computer network known as the Internet has operated relatively smoothly. A California-based organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), manages the so-called Domain Name System (DNS), which assigns unique Internet names and addresses.


ICANN was created in 1998. Although it is private and includes international members on its board, the U.S. Department of Commerce vetos or approves its decisions.

The issue of American control over ICANN is in the spotlight, as calls for a more representative global body to manage the Internet are getting louder.’

This article is available at:
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-11/2005-11-15-voa39.cfm?
CFID=292446800&CFTOKEN=87031972

The Politics of Internet Control

February 14, 2008

Article Extract:

Most net users probably do not spend a lot of time worrying about who runs the resource they are using, but there is a global battle brewing over that very question.

The internet grew out of US military and academic research, and the US government still has certain measures of control over it.’

This article is available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4436428.stm

The Politics of Internet Control

February 14, 2008

Article Extract:

Though various countries had suggested this already, the EU had previously supported the current system, where control rests with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which works with the U.S. Commerce Department.

“At the end of the day, it’s just the U.S.’s option,” said Sean Carton, director of interactive research and development for Carton Donofrio Partners.’

This article is available at: http://www.physorg.com/news6901.html

The Politics of Internet Control

February 14, 2008

Article Extract:

It is the guardian of the underlying architecture of the net, overseeing allocation of domain names such as .com or .net, and the addressing system that links domain names to the numbers computers understand.

It has always been intended that the net coordinator should eventually be a private organisation, but since it has been in existence Icann has been overseen by the US government.’

This article is available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5388648.stm