While I agree that the 'hive mind' of web 2.0 may be in some ways problematic, I also see it as somewhat inevitable and even enjoyable. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx recognized that the market drives development, and the related entropy/pastiche (as Frederick Jameson uses the terms) of our times only continue to confuse further our notions of identity and subjectivity. The related neuroses of modern experience arise from our inability to accept, comprehend, and integrate into the complicated infrastructure of our world, and I think that one of the things we will soon have to learn as a result is that we can't take our personal selves too seriously lest we be too easily manipulated. Although we still want impossibly ideal political leaders, spectacular celebrities, and simplified newsbits, we need to accept that the world cannot be so. The echo-chamber 'user-illusion' generated by direct marketing will hopefully burn out eventually just like our newfound infatuation with web2.0 technologies. I just hope that the damage will not be too severe.

Many of the sentiments that I have had related to the internet and its progress, or “progress”, have been echoed in the opinions of many other people who are skeptical of the internets benefits. One of the biggest concerns I have is that of security and privacy. With the vast expansion of the internet and the information people make readily available to others who are selling. Although I agree that there are more benefits to the internet than harm, I think it is incredibly important that internet users exercise caution while surfing.

Michael Gorman stated something similar to my own apprehensions in his statement, “we must exercise judgment, use digital resources intelligently, and import into the digital world the values that have pervaded scholarship in Western societies for many centuries.” This, to me, means that users of Web 2.0 interfaces, such as Wikipedia and Facebook, must not only exercise caution, but provide information that enhances the informational value of the internet. What good is Wikipedia if users continually post false information?

Another concern of mine is that of the actual information available on the internet. According to Gorman, “One common difficulty arises from the ambiguous and varying use of the word “information.” We are told that we live in an “information age” (though it’s arguable that there is not more information than before but simply more information more readily accessible to more people).” With search engines as powerful as Google, often times people will credit any information Google returns as respectable and correct. This could (in extreme cases) lead to incredible misinformation that may change or even harm an individual. Though there is much easier access to information now, the information provided may actually be hurting more than helping.

In class, we discussed the supposed benefits of Web 2.0 interfaces and how much easier it is to access information. I think this ease could lead to lack of critical thinking and influential and individual thought. So before we lose that ability entirely, let’s carefully consider what information we present to the world, and how credible we make that package.

For the most part, I have to agree with what the author has to say about Wikipedia. There is a tremendous amount of information that can be gained due to the fact that it is an open source of information and pretty much anybody can add to it, which of course can be good and bad. However, due to its accessibility and ease of looking up information, its accuracy can somewhat be overlooked. All it comes down to is that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anybody who can reach an internet connection can use. Wikipedia can be a public good, and probably is considered one, but it must constantly be checked for errors and such so that it serves its purpose which is offering factual information rather than fact based. Of course, a public good does not always serve the needs of everybody, but for the most part it does what it needs to do to serve the majority, in this case it means the people who just want to get a little info on a certain subject can do so at their own will.

The author near the end of the article makes a good point about students’ knowledge of Wikipedia saying, “Why are we telling students not to use Wikipedia rather than educating them about how Wikipedia works? […] Imagine if we taught students how to fact check claims in Wikipedia and, better yet, to add valuable sources to a Wikipedia entry so that their work becomes part of a public good.” I do wish that I was taught how the inner working of Wikipedia rather than just being told not use it. That just makes a lot more sense to me.

In response to “Threat to Individuality” Birkets raises two interesting points about individuality in our ever increasing digital age. I agree that the progression of attitudes towards information and traditional education have begun to change. He states that “Information is always a function of context” and I believe that there is a more willingness of people to forget about context and strictly focus on what information is available. Search engines provide a wealth of information at your fingertips, but many times the context and perspectives from where this information originates becomes blurred. In addition, by making so much information readily available the process of thoroughly seeking information and evaluating sources becomes lost. As a result, I think there is a more willingness in people to readily accept information without considering the perspective of the author and formulating one’s own opinions.

In going along with this idea, I believe the growing collective intelligence movement opens up dangerous pitfalls. By becoming involved in these collective information circles and subscribing to the “hive” mind people begin to lose their subjective and personal informed experiences. Instead of actively thinking and debating information we run the risk of merely accepting and subscribing to the ideas and perspectives of this collective intelligence. Of course I am not making the point that people will throw all sense of personal opinions and we will all become mindless automatons belonging to a single collective perspective. Rather, I think that we run the risk of majority opinions and perspectives becoming dominant and the more independent and personal voices becoming drowned out in the sea of collective control.

Lanier brings up a good point when he talks about Wikipedia being a place for “foolish collectivism.” As Michael Gorman said in his essay: “The automation of physical labor did not make our muscles bigger. Are we to assume that the automation of mental labor will make our brains smarter?” Both authors seem to be pretty pessimistic about this.

I don’t really know where I stand on this. On the one hand, I see both Lanier and Gorman’s points, but on the other I think that there is some hope for these “Web 2.0” applications. I think that there is a chance that Wikipedia can “fix itself,” an attitude Lanier says is the “most dangerous illusion of all.”

I suppose that whether I think either side is right or wrong, it doesn’t matter. I tend to think that we should be safe rather than sorry. In this sense, we should follow Lanier’s advice to find “a humanistic and practical way to maximize value of the collective on the Web without turning ourselves into idiots.” Although I do think that, depending on how it is done, this is the same thing as the collective whatever fixing itself.

Another thing I liked about the article was Lanier’s idea that “empowering the collective does not empower individuals.” I think that it is not healthy for either the collective or the individual to be more empowering than the other. Whereas Lanier seems to be on the side of individuals, I think that the individual and the collective must always work to keep a check on one another. Perhaps this idea is not as ideal (lazy) as many people would like, but I think it is necessary.

Also, I may be misinterpreting this, but I feel that this empowerment of the collective is not so far ahead of the individual right now. Yes, wikipedia is, but what about Flickr and other online communities that are very individual oriented? I think that Lanier is really putting the collective on a pedestal. Because, seriously, we love individual attention and we love to talk about ourselves, and I just don’t see how we’d substitute that for a collective, no matter what the realm.

In Sven Birkerts’s blog “The Threat to Individuality” two concepts that are focused on concerning Web 2.0 are the search for information and mass collaboration. Yes it is true that people are using search engines everyday to find information on a variety of subjects, but is this necessarily a bad thing? Sven states the importance of the process of searching for information he iterates the process of learning what and how to search. His argument seems somewhat weak on this point and not too clear using a drama by De Le’Isle-Adam to emphasize his point, but it only adds another metaphor to interpret. Isn’t it a good thing to be able to find all the information you need with relative ease?

Sven’s main argument against Web 2.0 deals with the idea mass collaboration. He fears this idea of collective intelligence as a threat to a person’s individuality, but is this really what is happening? Mass collaboration according to Sven is likely in the disciplines and sciences as a way for advancement, but he is worried about its spread to other parts of society which would affect a person’s individuality. I believe that his fears are unwarranted, the internet has allowed for the spread of different ideas exposing people to different aspects of society around the world. I believe that the opposite is actually happening, people are not losing their individuality but they are broadening their horizons.

Concerning the actual writing of the blog, I found it challenging to read and understand the points that Sven Birkerts is trying to make in his posting. His inclusion of the drama “Axel” seems unnecessary as a way to reinforce the point he is trying to make. His choice of words makes him seem really smart, but it doesn’t help that his audience doesn’t know what he is talking about. He finishes his post making references to a Brave New World and 1984 this doesn’t really mean much to me since I haven’t read either of these books. That being said, I will look into obtaining copies of these books to gain a better understanding of his ideas.

There are two main issues that the author infers about concerning Web 2.0. First is information and the second is individual minds dependence on others. One must question are these extremes in which Birkerts writes about or are they a possible reality?
The first theory leads to the second. Is accountable information being sacrificed – the kind that will make the person think beyond the contextual evidence? Internet users trying to get information when they want might jeopardize their analytical skills, because someone else or group has already provided the “knowledge.” However, each person is entitled to process a particular set of information in any way he/she pleases independent of whatever any other person or group have said. Humans are given the capacity to make hypothesis, observe and draw conclusions on their own. The internet provides information and it is up to the user to determine how to use it. Just as with encyclopedias, the facts are written but no one tells you how or what to look for and most importantly how you interpret the information. If an individual chooses to be ignorant of the many perspectives then so be it.
The second thought, which Birkerts ponders about, is individuality. Will we remain individuals or not with the emergence of Web 2.0? In the article, individual means or is taken in the sense of relying on one self and experiences to gain insight. The author argues that “value-based intelligence” is compromised by the collaborative freedom of Web 2.0. If individuals collaborate and share ideas with one another will it make them less subjective or less of an individual? The collaborative networks provide a place for individuals to voice their opinions, to tell about their experiences. That doesn’t mean each individual will stop experiencing things on his or her own just because someone said something isn’t good.
The collaborative networks and the easy click of a mouse give each individual an opportunity to explore different information instantly, however Web 2.0 is not the mind of that individual. Humans have control over the Internet not the other way around.

Boutin’s article was the best thing I have red so far on Web 2.0. He strips the “phenomenon” down to its bare essentials and exposes it for the buzzword it really is. He also mentions the fact that nobody can really tell you what it is. Even the man who turned the phrase, O’Reilly, is hard pressed to succinctly describe what it is. I have felt his frustration this week as I have scanned half a dozen articles all fairly ambiguous as to what the term means. It’s sort of like getting Barry Bonds to explain to you how to hit a home run. He knows what to do, but he probably cannot explain it or tell me how to do it.
Furthermore he unveils that the word is less of a term, and more of a badge of cultural relevance. If you know what Web 2.0 is, then you are on the inside. And if you call your application a “Web 2.0 application” then you have really got a hot commodity on your hands. At the end of the day it just seems as if Web 2.0 is a bandwagon. The Internet has not changed. There was no version upgrade. But you have got to have a name for a big boom. Otherwise what will you call it? Indeed there has been a shift in what the Internet does for most day-to-day users, but the potential was there the whole time; we are just now realizing it and using it in that way. Ultimately I do not really subscribe to this notion of Web 2.0. It is too conflicting, and too indefinite. I understand the concepts but I think O’Reilly needs to get back to the drawing board.

Boutin’s article was the best thing I have red so far on Web 2.0. He strips the “phenomenon” down to its bare essentials and exposes it for the buzzword it really is. He also mentions the fact that nobody can really tell you what it is. Even the man who turned the phrase, O’Reilly, is hard pressed to succinctly describe what it is. I have felt his frustration this week as I have scanned half a dozen articles all fairly ambiguous as to what the term means. It’s sort of like getting Barry Bonds to explain to you how to hit a home run. He knows what to do, but he probably cannot explain it or tell me how to do it.
Furthermore he unveils that the word is less of a term, and more of a badge of cultural relevance. If you know what Web 2.0 is, then you are on the inside. And if you call your application a “Web 2.0 application” then you have really got a hot commodity on your hands. At the end of the day it just seems as if Web 2.0 is a bandwagon. The Internet has not changed. There was no version upgrade. But you have got to have a name for a big boom. Otherwise what will you call it? Indeed there has been a shift in what the Internet does for most day-to-day users, but the potential was there the whole time; we are just now realizing it and using it in that way. Ultimately I do not really subscribe to this notion of Web 2.0. It is too conflicting, and too indefinite. I understand the concepts but I think O’Reilly needs to get back to the drawing board.

Paul Boutin argues that Web 2.0 doesn't live up to the hype because its name has been overused by different groups of people. I agree with him very much about the confusion created by its hype- he says that Web 2.0 has been used as a term to describe several different digital frontiers. These frontiers include the modularation and collaboration of tools like MySpace or Wikipedia, the evolution of web technologies like Ajax, and the use of Web 2.0 as a marketing term. This makes the term especially hard to define- in the shift from 1.0 to 2.0 one would expect certain, concrete changes, or at least a certain date to attach it to; however that is impossible when the term is used to define shifts in so many different areas. However I disagree with Boutin when he says that Web 2.0 "finally does what they'd said version 1.0 would do", because I think the current use of the Internet in all the ways Web 2.0 stands for is far beyond the scope of what most people were envisioning in the internet's earlier years.

When different online groups use the same buzzword it gets very hard to define a term like Web 2.0, but an excellent point that Paul Boutin brought up was that the usage of the term 2.0 is almost always unnecessary. The Internet has been a steadily evolving system for years now; there has not been any change so sudden that really warrants giving it a new superficial version number like "2.0". The internet is what it is, there is no returning to "Web 1.0" and the 2.0 classification usually only confuses people when used in any specific sense. It would make more sense to call Web 2.0 "the internet" as it is and Web 1.0 "the internet in the past" or maybe even "old-fashioned" depending on the context it is being used in.

This article discussed how wikipedia has become dangerously elevated in our minds and trust with little justification for the "truth" it holds. The author discusses that he fears this new experimental type of information in which the collective mind is more justifiable than a single trained mind. He says that these new "meta" type sites tap into the idea that the collective mind is all wise. In one sense I do understand the ideas that are being presented by this writer. I do believe that there is some threat to accuracy when you are relying on the majorities to judge what is a fact. By our very nature we tend to disagree and in conflict it is not always the truth that prevails. The threat to what we consider to be true is originated in the fact that many people simply do not know what they are talking about. The majority of people most likely are not incredibly educated on the subject. For example, we could ask the question of what is the best definition for some culture across the world. We may have several people weigh in, in an attempt to seem intelligent, but there may be that one person that has studied this specific culture and knows the culture much better than the other people, but due to the success of the majority, the truth he has to offer may not be heard. When it comes to things that could be considered to be subjective i think that there is little problem in this. I believe the reason for this is that there is no one "truth", we hold our own individual truths, and the best possible definition we could have to achieve for a general sense would come from a mean of people's ideas. Where this becomes incredibly difficult and troublesome is in the question of things that are non subjective and are judged to be theoretically factual. In particular, in the science field there are those who are much more educated on specific subjects as opposed to the general public. Will these people's voices be heard over that of the larger majority? With this time in which we can all edit the "truth" it is easy for the more educated person to simply be overlooked by someone who is acting like they know what they are talking about. The difficulty that arises in defining this problem comes from the fact that science, in its very nature, is a completely editable subject. The idea of science is that there is no absolute truth, that everything is always subject to experimentation and higher definition. Science lends itself then to being edited as time progresses. But it is difficult to decide who we allow to change this truth. In the science world you must present your argument and back it up with various data that can not be refuted by the majority of the science community. But, now that we can anonymously edit these scientific "truths" there is little check on what exactly is a valid point. In general i would say that it is valid to carefully analyze what the collective intelligence says about subjective material, but we must be incredibly discerning when trying to identify what the current scientific truth of some subject is. Science must always be subject to criticism and careful analysis and in this new age it is necessary to approach science on the net in the same manner. The collective intelligence has much to offer, but we have to be careful not to refuse our own ideas just because they are not as popular.

Prior to this class, to be honest with you I never even heard about all this hoopla that everyone is calling Web 2.0. I’ve used many of the websites that claim they are using the new technology such as MySpace and YouTube. I realized that these sites are extremely popular, so the creators must be doing something right. It’s obvious to me now that these sites were the ones that jump started this evolution. People want to get involved in their online experience; post their own material, thoughts, and reviews on a product. At the same time we also want to read, watch and listen to those items, which tended to be the way Web 1.0 worked.

Creating this environment for others makes the internet an addiction. My roommate nearly went insane when he had to take his laptop into best buy for repairs. He felt disconnected even though his cell phone is always attached to his left hand. This “new” technology is already a way of life for some people in general, and most people in my generation.

Now the definition of Web 2.0 is often debated. I myself didn’t realize there was a new version of the “web.” I continue to call this vast online world that I get onto everyday the “internet.” Never will I say to my friends, “hey guys, I’ll be right back. I’m going to surf the Web 2.0 for a few hours.” Just doesn’t have the same ring to it. This isn’t exactly a new version of a video game, like Halo 3. All Web 2.0 simply is (in a complex way), is a medium for collaboration / participation, instead of the stagnant read only web sites that once were.

No matter what you call it, this technology is taking over in a new wave. And if corporations and businesses don’t jump on this wave, they have no chance to survive in this ever changing world, better yet, this ever changing internet.

--Kyle Benton

The dot-com boom and bust brought a slew of innovative services such as P2P file sharing and Voice over IP (VoIP). Those who survived the bust carried the torch on to Web 2.0. What threatens these fledging services now are, as Boyd mentions, those with their heads in the sand. Before I begin, I must note that Boyd is associated with the same company that brought Wikipedia's accuracy into question in 2005 [1], to which the community quickly responded [2].

Since my senior year of high school, I was taught that Wikipedia is only to be used as a “starting point” and never as a legitimate source. Although I agree with this to a certain extent, I wish that the other students in my classroom were taught how to verify claims for themselves, use the history feature to see how the article evolved, and even contribute to the conversation. Indeed, I have learned much from Wikipedia as it publishes articles on every topic imaginable. After all, will an article about how to perform an emergency reboot ever appear in a paper encyclopedia [3]? It would be unrealistic to expect something like this on a traditional medium. Web 2.0 picks up where traditional media leaves off. It has made the world flat by making it easier to communicate, disseminate, and innovate [4].

The fact that so much is available online for a low price threatens established business models. As such, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are starting their attempt to give preferential treatment to those who pay them and downgrade the delivery of content to those who do not. Thus begins the net neutrality debate: Should ISPs be treated like a utility company and be required to treat all data neutrally? Such a “tiered” Internet has the potential to shut out innovative startups who cannot afford to pay their price of admission, thus reserving the megaphone to the elite.

This is a case where history repeats itself. All too often does the quest for profit attempt to “dismantle [something] simply because it means change,” as was the case of FM radio [5]. It is my hopes that this generation sees the damage this causes and aspires to undo it... for the common good.

---

Works Cited
[1] Giles, Jim. “Internet encyclopaedias go head to head.” Nature. 15 December 2005. 19 September 2007. < http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html >
[2] “Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia.” 31 July 2007. 19 September 2007. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_B... >
[3] “Magic SysRq key.” 12 September 2007. 19 September 2007. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_SysRq_key >
[4] Friedman, Thomas L. “It's a Flat World, After All.” New York Times. 3 April 2005. 19 September 2007. < http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/magazine/03DOMINANCE.html?_r=1&adxnnl=... >
[5] Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York:The Penguin Press, 2004. 19 September 2007. < http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf > Pg. 3.

I accidentally posted this last night to the blog entry #1 section
As for Birkerts’ comments on the astonishingly accessible information deluge available on the web, I agree with him completely that information and education is a function of context and that such information should not be a sole source, but a minor contributor to one’s overall knowledge. It’s easy to fall into the traps that web-based knowledge affords – namely that the certainty of the source could be called into question and the potential that this type of research could entirely supplant traditional methods of information gathering which are more reliable, though less accessible, far before this method is warranted. More and more legitimate web sources are available as information sources, and many more institutions, centers of learning, and valid purveyors of knowledge are heading in the digital direction, but many outlets on the internet are still far from reaching this point.

In response to his primary concern, the threat to the individual, I have to say that in many ways I disagree with Birkerts’ assertion that a “hive” mind is a serious threat stemming from Web 2.0. It is true that this new version of the internet connects the masses on a level that has never before been witnessed, but I doubt in its capabilities to annihilate the individual. With each new technological advance comes a tighter interweaving of global humanity – you can see this historically through forms of transportation and media dissemination, each of which allowed the individual to reach out further and further and reduced limitations stemming from boundaries. With each new technology came new fears about the consequences of broadening the potential scope of the individual as well. For scientific purposes, this readily available sharing of information has done wonders, especially for fields in natural history, where websites and amateur enthusiasts have merged in wonderful ways, providing record submissions (subject to verification, of course) and increasingly helpful data from sources and locations which could never be covered by one expert alone. As for Birkerts’ fears for the literary and artistic fields, I fail to see how such very subjective fields could be “colonized” and therefore altered in value. Facts can remain facts, but nothing can touch individual experience, at least if the individual is actually experiencing what literature and art have to offer, not mechanically absorbing what others proffer to them. If the web is such a threat to cultural homogenization, what on earth was television? At least with the web, you have more options as to what you choose to expose yourself to. And if you don’t like it, you can create your own venue for self expression. If anything, I see Web 2.0 as a way to express individuality rather than stifle and homogenize it.

Sara Pratt