Web 2.0 Makes Me Cringe

21 thoughts on “Web 2.0 Makes Me Cringe”

1. Whatever you call it, it’s yummy

   I tend to agree with D’Arcy, and exhibit a similar gag-reflex when someone drops the term “Web 2.0” on me. But as Darren points out in the ensuing comments, it can be hard to resist when you are trying to conceptualise a broad range of applications,…

2. A contrary view, of sorts, given the renewed flurry of interest in the wake of Bryan Alexander’s new essay.

   I think of Web 2.0 more as a not-that marker. As in, not Blackboard. Not static web pages. Not reproducing on the Web exactly what we’ve already had, and in some cases had better, in print culture. Etc. For me, Web 2.0 means things that “get” the web as something more than online handouts the students can print out and bring to class.

   I think “Web 2.0” is a standard. A standard of imagination, of writeability, of an environment that allows freetagging, links, impulse authoring, reorganization, rip/mix/feed, etc. Blackboard is not Web 2.0 compliant because it is fundamentally about using the web to automate and administer the activities that were already going on in print culture. It’s a faster bicycle, not a car, and not an airplane. It is fundamentally unimaginative, and its business plan seems to be to appeal to administrators who want a more automated process of doing Business As Usual. With “Caliper,” the assessment module that’s their Fourth Leg (after the “Learning System,” the “Portal,” and the “Content Management”/E-Portfolio legs), they will have Business As Usual all sewn up in a Web 1.0 read-this-but-don’t-write-back bag. No rip mix feed need apply.

   Web 2.0 means “enough already.” At least, that’s what it means to me.

3. While Web 2.0 and eLearning 2.0 are both relatively amorphous, I think that there is definitely something about this. I agree with you that it’s definitely overused, but wouldn’t you say that there’s some real value to these terms to help explain that “there’s something different going on now” I think you gave me your take on some of my posts before, but I’d be surprised if you don’t at least have a gut reaction on this stuff:

   http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/02/does-elearning-20-make-difference.html

   http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/02/learning-trends-point-to-and-shape.html

   http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/03/rosenbergs-beyond-elearning-is-that.html

4. I’ve got a problem with the term “eLearning” in the first place, so don’t get me started 🙂 It’s just learning. Nothing magical about it. The “e” is just a set of tools used to facilitate the communication that can lead to learning. “eLearning 2.0” is equally meaningless, but buzzword compliant.

   The real shift isn’t represented in version numbers, or cute prefixes to words. It’s about decentralization, and empowering (as well as recognizing) the individual. That has nothing to do with 1.0 or 2.0. It doesn’t even require online tools or electricity. The real shift is so much more important than that. I feel an essay coming on. Might save it up for a bigger, more coheret piece 🙂

5. I dunno, D’Arcy: “decentralization” and “empowering … the individual” look like buzzwords to me, too. Part of what makes school work is a systematic voluntary disempowerment on the part of both student and teacher, a kind of mutual surrender. And I don’t know what “decentralization” means anymore. I’d be happy to have a central place that organized our digital assets and make them readily accessible. I’d be ecstatic to have a central something that would allow distributed authorship throughout the enterprise (and I’m not just talking Contribute, either). I fought to establish a centralized non-print media collection when I got here, many years ago. The “decentralized” collections we had consisted of closets in each department that housed musty old videotapes that students couldn’t have accessed even if they had wanted to, which by and large they wouldn’t have. And departments didn’t want to give those collections up. They spoke up in favor of “decentralization” and against “the man” (or whatever) who would take their resources away and pool them for the common good.

   And for the record, I think networked high-speed computers really do represent a difference in degree that’s so large it amounts to a difference in kind–in kind of communication, and in the possibilities for civilization. A book is a tool, too, but it enabled rapid and complex leaps forward in civilization that would not otherwise have been possible.

6. Gardner – touché. I’m not saying this stuff isn’t important or meaningful, just absolutely hating the dilution of any meaningful description of it by marketroid rainmakers looking to monetize their ROI via synergistic dotcombulation.

7. I’m certainly with you there. 😉

8. I’m really interested in communities and shared identities – I’ve actually gone over to the web 2.0 side after being cringed out for a while. I agree completely with arguments that it can be used as a short-hand term to gloss over ignorance and appear in the know, as well as operating as a formal (maybe even prescriptive) set of standards. What I like it for though is that it creates a shared language and set of meanings – and the fact that those meanings are contested is the exact reason why it works for me. There’s simultaneously a general agreement and an always-having-to-be negotiated tension. If you look historically at the names given to other phases – third-wave feminism is one that springs immediately to mind – you’ll see the same kind of arguments about their validity. This thrashing out of what it is we mean and why or why not we should call it something are to me the real guts of change and shifts in perception and action.

9. My next compnay is going to be a Web “the square root of -1” startup – irrationality roolz, d00d!

10. Amen, bro. Personally, whenever I hear someone say “web two…” I start thinking about my grocery list. I wish people would be specific about what they’re talking about (i.e., the technologies they’re using) rather than just use a buzzword to mask all of that information, thinking that we’ll be dumbly impressed.

11. “Web2.0” == “I want VC cash” ;O)

12. Tony Karrer posted a follow-up comment, but for some reason it appeared on CoComment.com and not here. Here’s the text of his comment:

    “decentralization, and empowering (as well as recognizing) the individual”

    That echos what a lot of people are saying is the central idea of Web 2.0. Somehow I think that we are all saying that there is something interesting going on, but maybe the terminology is a little overdone.

    It reminds me of a great quote that I know Bill Gates likes to cite:

    “We have a tendency to overestimate technology’s impact in the short-run and underestimate it in the long run.”

    I feel like we are finally starting to understand the implications of technology that’s been around for quite a while and how it provides:

    “decentralization, and empowering (as well as recognizing) the individual”

    Maybe it’s not a “2.0”, but what’s the alternative term to represent this evolution?

13. D’Arcy-
    That’s why I named my firm “The Next Wave”- because after the Third Wave- would come the fourth and the fifth- and these days- they come quick.
    I’m not sure we’re not already at web 2.7.3

14. It’s more like 0.3 pre 1 – it’s not fully baked yet, but is showing a lot of promise 🙂

15. I’ve heard several people express their dislike of the use of the terms web 1.0 and web 2.0 for all the reasons you site. Yet I still find them very useful and handy terms whose definition is embeded in part of the term. (i.e. web 1.0 was one-way, consume content; web 2.0 is two-way, create and consume content.)

    Whenever I talk to teachers who are learning about the suite of new online tools that can be used effectively in the classroom for the first time, these terms are very handy and convenient ways of describing the very concepts you talk about in your post. I don’t disagree with anything you wrote really, but I think the issue is with the people who overuse (abuse?) the term web 2.0 rather than an ill chosen expression.

16. I don’t know. It implies that all that is needed to be innovative is to upgrade the web. It’s not that simple. “Web 2.0” stuff will suck just as badly as “Web 1.0” stuff if it’s just grafted over top of the old kruft, with no real rethinking about how an individual or an organization should communicate (both internally and externally). It’s not just a matter of repeatedly running Software Update. It’s a rethinking of organizational structures, communication strategies, power relationships, control systems, etc… I’d love to see the organization (or even an individual) that has reached that Zen plateau…

17. You’re right there. A “Web 2.0” label isn’t going to make anyone innovative. More and more people are ripping off a label that doesn’t really apply and thereby diluting the meaningfulness it once had. But in the end, I think that just reflects on their poor craftsmanship. Like you said, people who do cool stuff will go on doing cool stuff and get recognized for it. If we use another label, eventually it too will become less meaningful in the same way. I guess I just find “Web 2.0” a convenient box to wrap a set of ideas around. We can wrap the same ideas around a different box, but then someone will swipe that too.

18. Dude, you are soooo Web 2.0 for bashing Web 2.0 😉 I can’t believe how 2.0 it is…

    In all seriousness, the term has created buzz. The buzz has turned into rapid innovation and money. So it is good in a sense. It sucks that people seem to be forgetting about best practices in the process.

19. At the recent Blackboard conference I sat in on a client feedback session where one client took a few minutes to ask why Blackboard wasn’t “Web 2.0 compliant”.

    So it’s a standard now.

    The Blackboard folks (and everyone in the room) seemed very patient, accepting “Web 2.0 compliance” as a standard we should all accept. They gently asked him a few questions and he was really just looking for AJAX.

20. I guess what makes me cringe the most is that it’s becoming quite reminiscent of the Internet Bubble. Hype over substance. Pets.com anyone? All they’d have to do is relaunch that using Ruby on Rails and AJAX, and they’d have another killer IPO…

21. And, of course, to be really Web 2.0, you need to adhere to the various design conventions: http://omgheadshot.com/trendyweb/

    Here’s quite the list of Web 2.0 sites – what a trend this has become:

    http://www.sacredcowdung.com/archives/2006/03/all_things_web.html

Comments are closed.