3 posts tagged “web 2.0”
An illustration of my view of levels of online community. I see relevance to thinking in these terms in a "Web 2.0 World" that doesn't always distinguish between the types of user interaction with sites and with other people. Sometimes, or perhaps often, discussion about virtual communities is too imprecise. In such cases, usually technology is set as a high point of discussion and simple user-to-user interaction is treated as community. In reality, strong, vibrant virtual communities generally takes a long time to develop. And while the technology might hinder such, it doesn't on other hand create it.
Recently and in droves, internet businesses are realizing that users play a strong role in defining success. This realization has led to increasing discussion of online community, social networks, and user-driven technology. The debate on the validity of various concepts of Web 2.0 aside, the irony is that the attention on social and community-based aspects of online products, technology, and space is actually a delay by the majority in catching up to what a minority have always understood.
While the more recent attention on the topics has many benefits, it includes a number of drawbacks. One of these negative consequences is that increased in attention and number of “players” has led to dilution of meaning in commonly-used language. Namely, common use of terms like “online community” is no longer “common”. The increased usage of this and similar terms may be inversely proportional to the decrease in the common understanding of the terms themselves. Unfortunately, individuals between groups and within groups can find themselves using terms that seemingly has a common definition, but in actuality the usage of such terms carries different meanings to different individuals.
Such is now the case with general discussion about “online community” within and between internet businesses. In order to have productive conversations about strategies, technology, and products (whether or not they are labeled “Web 2.0”), it is crucial that the use of language be more precise and that a common understanding of certain terms develop.
The increased attention in the last couple of years on social and user-driven aspects of internet businesses no longer allow for “online community” to be a truly useful term. It is no longer a precise term. In actuality, there are several different phenomena that tend to be described as “online community”, but these share little in common besides being a description of groups of people using a particular website. Phenomena often described as “community” range from websites that post static content from user submissions to fully functioning online communities (in the truest sense of the word). It is difficult to establish a list of definitions of community because any discussion of “community” tends to fall more on a spectrum rather than within a particular group.
To see these points illustrated further, one might consider some of the “community-oriented” products launched in recent years across the web. To some, all of these would be illustrations of online community, given that each involves user-generated content and each involves participation by the user base (“community”). However, the use of the word “community” when referencing particular products and technology does not involve the same conception of “community”. For example, the level of interaction between members in a virtual group or discussion board is not the same as that of the collaborative efforts in wikis. Contributors to the wikis do not interact with one another in ways that one would describe as community interaction.
Highly developed online communities represent the most accurate use of the term “community”. These are self-sustaining, self-maintaining, and organic units that beyond being a sum of its parts (individuals), represents a separate entity (perhaps in the sense that a corporation is recognized separately from its individual owners). Such communities continue to exist as individual members leave and new members join. These communities are also not best described by the particular technology employed to allow the community members to interact with one another. While particular technology may stifle the maintenance or growth of the community, the community itself is ultimately not defined by the technology. While the poor use of technology may negatively impact the health of the community, the technology does not create the community.
On the opposite extreme, one sees the term “community” being assigned to newer technology and newer spaces on the internet. Such usage sometimes describes online spaces that see interaction between the users and the site, with little or no interaction between individual users. Other times, there is interaction between users that are more happenstance rather than efforts to form a cohesive group.
There is a strong potential for this type of imprecision in use of language to cause misunderstandings within and between groups. As one group talks about “community” with another, it is difficult to imagine productive dialogue developing out of uncommon use of language. In the case of “community”, the different usage of the terms can easily cause differences in the valuation of assets. One group may discuss the value of community referring to true communities developed with careful management over a long period of time, while another team may be referring to technology and products that allow for additional user-generated content to be created. Truly, these are completely different concepts, yet there seems to be a need for each to use the same term “community”.
While the above is not a full articulation of the increasing problem of misuse of language and misunderstandings about the term “community in particular, it should serve to point out that such an issue exists. And the more that people discussion things like Web 2.0 and all that it incorporates, the more that the inaccurate use of terms like “community” will stifle understanding, increase tensions, and create confusion.
The "ultimate truth" about the state of the web today is that there are far more questions than answers, more speculation than insight, and more postering than real understanding. Which isn't to say that no one knows anything. But I am saying that I think those who claim to be "in the know" on almost every aspect of the internet today, tend to know less than they claim.
Why? Because this little thing we call the internet is a living, breathing "organism" on its own. And if history has taught us anything, we should have figured out by now that what the internet looks like tomorrow will be far more than the sum of its designed parts.
Now that I survived the "election time period", I've again immersed myself into trying to continue to understand various aspects of living and conducting business in the internet age. A few of my thoughts are recorded over at netknowledge.blogspot.com. (By the way, I find it to be truly ironic that what I have on Vox is far better indexed by Google than anything I have on the blog I just mentioned. Blogspot is owned by Google, for those who didn't know.) My most recent journey has taken me from search engine optimization and internet marketing, generally, to some more specific topics like cause-marketing via the internet and on Web 2.0. For the time being, I causually slip in Web 2.0 because I'm going to pretend that I am convinved it's a worthy topic on its own. More candidly, I would say "the jury is still out" on that one.
But I get to say what I want and even contradict myself tomorrow. I like to think that it's the beauty of the way I think - an opinion today doesn't matter tomorrow. And the fact that I'm one of the only ones reading my blog on a daily basis at the moment, means that it's not likely anyone is going to call me on any BS that I post. Thought sometimes the conversations I almost seem to have with myself by blogging here can be quite entertaining on a personal level.
Sidetracked. Going back to my original statement, I would say that there are many illustrations. But for those who would like to find an illustration that is easy to follow (due to sheer volume and attention given to the topic), you need not look further than the discussions of Web 2.0. Is it real? Is there substance to it? Do 5 people gathered around a table at a Starbucks even know what the other is talking about when they mention web 2.0? Probably not. It's like saying "God" or "spirituality" and then expecting that everyone is thinking of the same entity or concept.
Is Web 2.0 simply a re-packaged set of marketing terms? (Every once in a while, the soft drink makers will come up with a new design for bottles and cans. Did the formula for the cola change?).
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But looking at the most current (and past) discussions of Web 2.0 is a good illustration of what I like to think of as the "ulimate truth of the web today". The fact is, people haven't even agreed on what they are talking about, let alone agree on where technology is headed.
But that's the beauty of it. Once again I hear myself saying, life would be boring if we all agreed with each other. I have my own ideas about the internet, current and future. But the last thing I want is for everyone to agree with me. And I have my own secret little projects that I think will label me an innovator, but who's to say that what I think is right or real?
The ultimate truth about almost anything is that people are different; people have their own ideas; people will sometimes get along and sometimes they won't; some people are right, some people are wrong, and most spend time in each group. In regards to technology and the internet, the truth is that concepts come and go, so do companies, so does technology itself. One startup succeeds and another fails. This has happened many times in the past, it probably happened somewhere today, and the future will be the same.
But we keep striving to discuss, innovate, build, and grow. Passion for life and humanity will fuel even greater things. So whether we're discussing technology, the internet, web 2.0, or anything else, it's the conversation itself that contains the greatest reward. One of the ultimate truths of life is that life is in the journey and the conversation along the way.
