In class last week we investigated web development…1.0, 2.0 etc. 1.0, the web that we left behind in the 1990’s was quite hierarchical – Erica’s simile to a theatrical stage really helped me understand the concept. Web 2.0 (our current web generation) has a much more flattened hierarchy. No longer is there an authorative voice, but instead a sense of community and interaction; all users are somewhat given a voice. Again the theatre simile works brilliantly at clearly defining and understanding this notion. Web 2.0 : Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre. The audience was very interactive and would alert the actor’s (and not always in very subtle ways) what they thought of the play.
These two generations are to be clearly represented in the contrasting online websites of Online Britannica and Wikipedia. Britannica is written by a panel of experts (just like the physical Britannica books). Wikipedia however is understood as an online information centre that the users themselves can act as authors for. We as participants of Wikipedia are given the opportunity to add to or adapt the information on the website. The idea behind this means that there is no longer an ‘authortive’ group or ‘one voice’ feeding us information, but instead it is users informing users.
That’s the IDEA anyway.
I however have to question this.
The claim is that Online Britannica and Wikipedia mirror the development of Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. Britannica – one voice. Wikipedia – interaction and community. We say that Wikipedia is an example of a flattened hierarchy, but is it really? Or is this program just giving an authoritive opportunity to different groups? When investigating the authorship of Wikipedia I discovered that of all the consumers, a very minimal percentage actually engage in the writing. When Jimbo Wales, the face of Wikipedia did an authorship study on his program he found out that over 50% of all the edits are done by just 0.7% of the users ... 524 people. ...Think of all the hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people that use Wikipedia regularly – to have such a minority actually writing this information effectively shows that even Wikipedia has an authorative group. Yes we are all given the opportunity to indulge in this experience but how many of us actually do it??? Obviously a very small few. Majority of us are consumers of the information in front of us and don’t even think of the source – hardly an interactive community…
Erica touched on the subject of Wikipedia, the sum of social prejudice and I’d like to quickly elaborate on this…When it comes to Wikipedia might = right. It is those people that have the time and desire to contribute to the program that do so. This small group will effectively plant information, documenting it as ‘truth’ even if it isn’t….
So…has hierarchy been banished with these new web developments? I certainly have to question it…I do believe that Web 2.0 is a web generation that offers many more interactive opportunities but even in these programs (be it Wikipedia, Bebo, Blogs, Facebook etc) there seem to be ‘authorative groups’. Maybe it comes down to how much you actually WANT to participate, but those that indulge more frequently than others certainly maintain an upper hand.
Until next time,
Michaela
2 comments:
Those are all key questions - and ones for which there is no neat answer. You may want to keep them in mind as you start working on your various critical assignments
(also: you may want to check the difference between a simile and a metaphor.)
Metaphor...Whoops my English must be a bit rusty! For a lot of our different topics there are no neat answers when critically analysing things...It for sure keeps the mind going though! And I suppose that's what make this exersize enjoyable, we are able to bounce ideas off eachother and get other opinions too :)
Post a Comment