So this weeks readings were more of my interest. Looking at how these reading were published back in 2005-06 I think web 2.0 has come a long way. One great example is Wikipedia because its more of collective knowledge that sets the standards. Whether this is good or bad, that’s a different story but the way I look at it is that this notion only keeps the motion going forward. I know there’s plenty of people that are skeptical about Wikipedia and it’s understandable because in it’s early creation, it had many errors but unlike anything else, it could be fixed on the scene. In the reading, The Amorality of Web 2.0, Carr makes an interesting point about Web 2.0:
the media, a world in which the ‘former audience, ‘not a few people in the back room, decides what’s important.
This statement is true and Wikipedia is standing proof of it. Of course, we may never need to know when and how the pencil came about but if needed, we could always wikipedia it. Whether we think it’s important or not, it already exist and it’s only getting better. During the class discussion, it was pointed out that things could only get better, unless we get a mass that chooses that something of no matter should be important. But I think we’re far from that ever happening but this leads to another point Carr made:
At this point, it seems fair to ask exactly when the intelligence in “collective intelligence” will begin to manifest itself. When will the great Wikipedia get good? Or is “good” an old-fashioned concept that doesn’t apply to emergent phenomena like communal on-line encyclopedias?
This is a direct blow to Web 2.0 because it questions everything about it and it’s users/content creators. Is society today not smart enough to create content individually? Collectively? Of course society as a whole hasn’t been ignorant nor will it create ignorant information for the rest to use. Technology enhances innovation and that is what Web 2.0 is doing. New emerging medias have exploded but not in a negative way, at least I think, and it only gets better from here. Of course wikipedia had/has some issues here and there but its nothing that can’t be fixed. Having that type of resource online allows it to be fixed at any given type unlike the encyclopedia. Once its printed, it sealed deal but with Wikipedia, when it’s posted, it has the ability to be edited over and over until perfection is achieved. In the reading, Know it all, Stacy Schiff points out that when an error is pointed out, it’s instantly corrected. So why argue that anything someone creates is not correct? Couldn’t we say that about the creators of the encyclopedia? Why trust that what they say is true?
In the end, Web 2.0 has already left it’s print online and on society. Time will tell what the end story but until then, whether good or bad, Web 2.0 will grow.