Comments on: Web 2.0, Fad or Future? http://devinetics.com/2008/06/10/web-20-fad-or-future/ Thoughts on Leadership, Management, and Career Growth in Silicon Valley Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:22:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jashoda http://devinetics.com/2008/06/10/web-20-fad-or-future/comment-page-1/#comment-221 Jashoda Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:28:42 +0000 http://devinetics.com/?p=33#comment-221 I wish we had fewer and simpler tools for communication. Why is it that all tools today promise to offer all features (e.g. a cell phone is now a PDA, a camera, a GPS and oh yes a phone)? It is frustrating to see Wikis crop up everywhere like weeds because very few authors/owners actually keep them updated. We have run into this situation where folks who were previously communicating just fine (by selecting the most appropriate medium for each audience segment) are now jumping onto the band wagon of having a Wiki too! So far I think this is a fad (or maybe not if you are a teenager and that is your primary way to reach out to your peers)! I wish we had fewer and simpler tools for communication. Why is it that all tools today promise to offer all features (e.g. a cell phone is now a PDA, a camera, a GPS and oh yes a phone)? It is frustrating to see Wikis crop up everywhere like weeds because very few authors/owners actually keep them updated. We have run into this situation where folks who were previously communicating just fine (by selecting the most appropriate medium for each audience segment) are now jumping onto the band wagon of having a Wiki too! So far I think this is a fad (or maybe not if you are a teenager and that is your primary way to reach out to your peers)!

]]> By: Phillip http://devinetics.com/2008/06/10/web-20-fad-or-future/comment-page-1/#comment-199 Phillip Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:22:58 +0000 http://devinetics.com/?p=33#comment-199 Too many people see Web 2.0 as a "build it and they will come" proposition. You cannot will a community of interest into existence. I see a lot of disparate Web 2.0 communities formed with only the interests of the community creator in mind. The resulting Web 2.0 architectures are akin to Panelák or Pruitt-Igoe. People will simply not inhabit such communities except by force or desperation. I argue that you have to "pay" contributors to your Web 2.0 infrastructure. This remuneration is not settled in currency, but in knowledge and exhangce of valuable experiences. Unless your Web 2.0 community has something that makes it attractive to visitors (and contributors), it will languish. Architecting a "web 2.0" site has a lot in common with Urban Planning. It is damn easy to put up a building. It is a whole other matter to have people interested in living there. As a vehicle for exchanging and developing new ideas, I don't really think Web 2.0 is well suited to that. You can do documentation, problem solving, and idea collection around a fixed topic, but I don't really think Web 2.0 is a good medium for brainstorming and idea nurturing complex ideas; I still see this as the realm of real-time (possibly facilitated) discussions. There's a reason airlines are still in business. Too many people see Web 2.0 as a “build it and they will come” proposition. You cannot will a community of interest into existence. I see a lot of disparate Web 2.0 communities formed with only the interests of the community creator in mind. The resulting Web 2.0 architectures are akin to Panelák or Pruitt-Igoe. People will simply not inhabit such communities except by force or desperation.

I argue that you have to “pay” contributors to your Web 2.0 infrastructure. This remuneration is not settled in currency, but in knowledge and exhangce of valuable experiences. Unless your Web 2.0 community has something that makes it attractive to visitors (and contributors), it will languish. Architecting a “web 2.0″ site has a lot in common with Urban Planning. It is damn easy to put up a building. It is a whole other matter to have people interested in living there.

As a vehicle for exchanging and developing new ideas, I don’t really think Web 2.0 is well suited to that. You can do documentation, problem solving, and idea collection around a fixed topic, but I don’t really think Web 2.0 is a good medium for brainstorming and idea nurturing complex ideas; I still see this as the realm of real-time (possibly facilitated) discussions. There’s a reason airlines are still in business.

]]> By: JB http://devinetics.com/2008/06/10/web-20-fad-or-future/comment-page-1/#comment-172 JB Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:04:19 +0000 http://devinetics.com/?p=33#comment-172 "Web 2.0 tools aren’t a goal unto themselves, but a vehicle for communication." Amen!! Too many folks are seeking to use these tools simply to appear "hip" to the latest technology. We need to normalize the etiquette that no new wiki can be made unless it consolidates 2 or more present wikis/webpages. Now, that said, I must confess of all the web 2.0 technologies, wikis are the best example of a technology that should/could enhance productivity given the proper environment and business problem you are trying to address. As a side note I wonder how long it will take until Web 3.0 catches on as a buzzword. ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3#Innovations_associated_with_.22Web_3.0.22 “Web 2.0 tools aren’t a goal unto themselves, but a vehicle for communication.”

Amen!! Too many folks are seeking to use these tools simply to appear “hip” to the latest technology. We need to normalize the etiquette that no new wiki can be made unless it consolidates 2 or more present wikis/webpages.

Now, that said, I must confess of all the web 2.0 technologies, wikis are the best example of a technology that should/could enhance productivity given the proper environment and business problem you are trying to address.

As a side note I wonder how long it will take until Web 3.0 catches on as a buzzword. ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3#Innovations_associated_with_.22Web_3.0.22

]]> By: Martin Hardee http://devinetics.com/2008/06/10/web-20-fad-or-future/comment-page-1/#comment-169 Martin Hardee Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:34:25 +0000 http://devinetics.com/?p=33#comment-169 You've hit the nail on the head. Web 2.0 technologies can facilitate collaboration (especially asynchronous collaboration that's hard across time zones) but an important prerequisite is for a culture of collaboration to exist in the first place! You’ve hit the nail on the head. Web 2.0 technologies can facilitate collaboration (especially asynchronous collaboration that’s hard across time zones) but an important prerequisite is for a culture of collaboration to exist in the first place!

]]>