Skip to content

VIII-Web 2.0

February 7, 2012

(This blog is written as a reflection this article.)

Where to begin..I guess I should start by saying that I’m really glad this class is not based on formal, traditional academic mores. If that were the case, what I’m about to write could possibly get me the sternest of stern looks, multiple pride lacerations from a viciously sharp, faux-English accented tongue, or maybe even strangled with a tweed jacket.

In this blog, for this class, it’s no problem at all for me to begin by saying that I find the author’s writing style downright dreadful. The words he used are reminiscent of ones that may be screamed into a Bluetooth earpiece by a stereotypical businessman as he runs over poor people in his 7-series BMW. Though I think he did manage to avoid using the word “synergy”, so that’s a plus.

It is completely and totally replete with jargon, which I didn’t really like (though found absolutely unavoidable) while I was in the Navy and I don’t like now. But maybe I’m judging too harshly. It probably is intended for a business-minded audience, after all, making my mockery somewhat unfair. And I should at least give my own opinion on the topic, not just make jokes.

Well, I find that UMW ds106 student Jeannette Shaffer (codename: Wandering Pooch) neatly sums up my own opinion when she says that  “Like some I think Web 2.0 was a natural progression of the internet and not this big earth shattering event.”

O’Reilly makes a big deal, in my opinion, about how the Web 1.0 companies seemed to rely on traditional business models, i.e. selling software and internet products like any other product that had existed previously, and Web 2.0 companies conducted business in the context of the Internet.

…Ok.

Well…

Of course! You can’t blame the first wave of companies for trying to relate to something that had been done previously (how else could the uninitiated attempt to understand it?) and it’s no surprise that the second wave of companies improved upon these methods.

Aren’t you glad this blog post wasn’t 5 pages long?

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

8 Comments
  1. In my personal opinion, I think that the move from software to service was a pretty substantial one. Just think about how we buy and install Microsoft Word 2010 vs logging into Google Docs. The backend of the latter might also be constantly updated, whereas I only get Word updates occasionally through ‘Windows Update’ on my PC. This is a huge shift for the tech world, one that has had repercussions for many industries (ie: games now having ‘patches’ and ‘DLC’).

    Even if it is a natural progression of ‘Internet evolution’, I believe it’s a quite significant one 🙂 Plus, these services are just one facet of O’Reilly’s whole idea.

    That’s just me though :p

    • Never said it wasn’t significant, just thought it was incredibly overanalyzed and difficult to penetrate for the average reader. Something along the lines of the first paragraph you just wrote would’ve been a much better read!

      • Yeah, it wasn’t written with the layman in mind. You have to be a lifeless internet nerd like me to appreciate it perhaps 😦

    • Well, you said it, not me! ;p

  2. I’m sure the big shot administrators at our institution and at the main campus will be delighted to hear that this class doesn’t adhere to the traditional academic mores. Looks like the thin ice I’m skating on just got a bit thinner.

    That still doesn’t mean I can’t remark once again at your amazing ability to manipulate the written form of our language into amusing and provocative yarns. That said, on some levels I must confess that in some way’s you’ve sort of phoned this one in.

    Your critique of O’Reilly’s use of buzzwords and jargon is fair game. A whole lot of the discourse that takes place in the tech-business community thrives on such terms.

    But I don’t get a sense of what you take away from the article, if anything. Your reference to Wandering Pooch’s opinion as being the same on your own doesn’t really tell us much unless we take the time to follow the link and read it. Had you provided a couple of sentences of summary and explanation of what appeals to you in her analysis than we can at least have some sense that you get what she’s on about.

    You see what I’m getting at here?

  3. First, let me say that I meant no disrespect or mockery with my first paragraph, quite the opposite actually. If you took offense to it, it’s not the first time something I meant to be complimentary was received like an insult, and I’m sorry. It’s something I need to work on. Unless you were kidding, in which case, yeah…

    Anyway, point well taken about underanalyzing Wandering Pooch’s post. She did make some interesting points about Web 2.0 with regard to Education, but since I didn’t know too much about it I wasn’t too sure what to say.

    A more in-depth analysis would have in general served the post better and I’ll try to remember that in the future.

    • No offense taken. I typically wouldn’t push back as vigorously as I did in my comment except that your writing is so damn good and witty that it’s pushing me to up mine a notch.

      That I came across as seeming offended shows that I’ve still got some revising and proofreading to do.

      I’m well aware that the methodology of this course is somewhat unorthodox. Frankly, I was delighted with your opening paragraph. I’m also delighted that you feel comfortable enough to express yourself freely. Please don’t squelch that impulse.

      Upon rereading your post and your response to Paul, I do see that I might have been to severe. You do put a bit of meat on the bones of your critique of O’Reilly and the milieu from which these sometimes over-hyped phrases emerge.

      Bottom line for me: you close with a question asking me if I’m glad your post isn’t five pages long. Actually, I wouldn’t have minded at all. It would have been a more enjoyable and memorable experience than slogging through the assigned reading.

  4. I appreciate it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: