Most of the readings and excersises we did in our IMS201D-Spring 08 class made everything pretty clear. I now know tagging is more than just my childhood game of hitting someone and running away and that wikipedia should not be my only source when it comes time for a thesis paper, BUT I still wanted to make sure I was fully grasping the concepts. I really liked the youtube video that showed the difference of web 2.0. Perhaps it’s the generation Y in me that is able to understand technology in terms of technology but it clicked. I decided to look at youtube for a futher explanation of web 2.0 and found this. This video goes into slightly more detail of how web 2.0 seperates (separates? does this blog have spell check?) content and form (if you don’t follow that, click the link and watch. It’s 4 short minutes of your life people) and even focuses on websites we’re using in our IMS class-flickr, delicious, this weblog, etc. It’s pretty cool to see how the machine, our computer, is basically us because of the ideas we put forth on it. deep thoughts = youtube.
Due to web 2.0 as the youtube video shows, the idea of users controlling, editing and creating web pages was developed. One of the big questions we ask in class is the idea of “the hive mind.” Meaning on websites like wikipedia is individuality lost because there HAS to be a group consensus in the definition of say “iTunes.” In “The Hive Mind,” the author compares us users on the web to ants and bees. He states that at times a lot more can be achieved by a group then simply an individual (i.e. whole definitions of Martin Luther King on wikipedia) but that sometimes due to the group, you miss out on seeing some of the other options that didn’t make it to the top. I think it’s a pretty cool idea that can be argued many different ways. And in our technological world, as it moves to less paper, more speed, and everything involving computers I think this is an argument that will stick around for awhile.
That video was sweet. It had a really interesting message and was well done.
It’s interesting we even discuss the ‘hive’ mind. Is the first time in history we see the voices of the masses ‘collected’ for refinement? This seems like a rather novel experiment, or, at the very least, with new variables.
Lanier is right on many things, but some philosophies he supports seem misguided. Granted, he has a PhD and I do not. He seems to have disgust with the ‘Hive’ mind. Is he saying the ‘Hive’ is incurable and will always suffer being mentally defficient? That human society, the members of the ‘Hive’, will always be, in mass, mentally handicapped? I don’t believe that exists in all possible human societies.
Who cares if he has a Ph.D. What does that mean. If you don’t agree you don’t agree.