What is Web 2.0?
November 24, 2007
The starting point of my research addresses the very basic concern of defining scope. This attempt to define Web 2.0 is directed towards raising relevant questions for a study on the potential impact of web 20 on education.
The essence of Web 2.0
Web 2.0 has no static definition. It is a fashionable and versatile term used by observers to point out to the many different patterns of change taking place today on the Internet.
It is a perceived change with no hard boundaries; which explains why traditional definitions are built around the opposition of examples rather then concepts. Attempts to define Web 2.0 generally account for the move to the Internet as a platform with an increased role for users who generate, evaluate and challenge content.
The complexity and the outreach of the change that is taking place makes it difficult to settle unilaterally on a clear definition of Web 2.0. However if I were to make an attempt at capturing only what is essential I would say that
Web 2.0 refers to a set of changes in format and practices taking place in the digital sphere and directed towards unleashing the potential of collective intelligence and social interaction.
Characterizing Web 2.0 as a process
Even though the term “2.0” suggests the existence of a static “second version” of the Internet, it is much more appropriate to start thinking of Web 2.0 as dynamic object. Like any process, Web 2.0 can be modeled using appropriate tools in order to increase our appreciation of the transformation which is happening on the Internet.
Therefore a first attempt at giving a valuable definition of web 2.0 consists in avoiding to define the photographic reality of what can be found on the Internet today, but rather to identify the major forces which drive change (variables of the Web 2.0 process). This approach can help provides clues into the potential impact of web 2.0 in different social, educational, and business realms.
The process of Web 2.0 gravitates around key variables which are represented here:
Defining ‘Web 2.0′ is in fact much more meaningful when avoiding focus on to the objects involved around the concept (technology), and when looking for meaning of the concept. This means trying to identify the ideology of web 2.0, which is based on assumptions and beliefs that are central to one’s appreciation of the value of Web 2.0.
As I mentioned, web 2.0 refers to a set of changes in the digital sphere directed towards unleashing the potential of collective intelligence and social interaction. Regardless of what is effectively evolving in the digital sphere, the changes implied by ‘web 2.0′ rely on a postulation, which is the belief in collective intelligence.
The belief in collective intelligence and the way it relates to Web 2.0 require close examination, as they are two central questions on which depend our appreciation of the value of web 2.0.
More specifically, the question of whether we can value web 2.0 for educational purposes primarily relies on the credit we give to the underlying assumption of web 2.0 that collective intelligence outvalues individual expertise. Secondly, it relies on whether we believe Web 2.0 is a satisfactory mechanism for insuring the fulfilment of collective intelligence.
What is collective intelligence ?
According to James Surowiecki’s theory of the wisdom of crowds, under the right circumstances groups can be far more intelligent in making the right choices then individual experts. This idea echoes the social constructivist theory which states that interaction between individuals is key to intelligence. Surowiecki defines a set of conditions which make the prophecy of collective intelligence more likely to happen, and also gives a series of factors which are likely to cause failure of collective intelligence.
The main flaw is information cascades, which occur when people lose their independence of thought through social interaction and rely blindly on what the majority of people think, culminating in a aggregated behavior which is unwise.
Therefore the key variable behind insuring that collective intelligence fulfils is the provision of an environment in which interactions do not deprive individuals from independence. Surowiecki suggests that there are two ways of insuring a secure environment for independent thinkers: by keeping ties loose, as loose social ties minimize the influence of others on you, and by diversifying sources of information, and therefore giving incentive for critical judgement.
Is it a relevant model?
This model seems logical and meaningful in the terms in which it is formulated, and it appears to encompass various real-life observations of either success or failure in group judgement. I would think that questions should be raised around the notion “independent thinkers” applied to real-life. If independent thinkers are absolutes then there is no doubt that collective intelligence works as a conceptual system, however there is little hope that a group composed of “independent thinkers” will materialize in the real world for collective intelligence to become a given predictable phenomenon.
The uncertainty in the fulfilment of collective intelligence lies in that space between the ideal of independent thinkers and real-world people who have very diverse and unstable levels of independence of thought, depending on unpredictable factors like circumstance or initial education.
However faced with this complexity of real-life as regards independence of thought, it seems valuable to define the characteristics of an environment which promotes this independence. In this, an environment in which individuals relate with loose ties and have access to diverse sources of information is more likely to witness collective intelligence as it push individuals towards more independence of opinion and thought.
Does Web 2.0 provide an environment which enables the wisdom of crowds?
When looking at specific web 2.0 technologies, it seems like most fail to fulfil the requisites of the wisdom of crowds as defined by Surowiecki. However, it is a mistake to consider Web 2.0 as an aggregation of specific technologies. Technologies taken separately add little meaning to our appreciation of the environment provided to users by web 2.0. In fact, the complementarity and diversity of web 2.0 technologies concretizes in users relying simultaneously on various technologies to do different tasks. This means that, from a user standpoint, the environment of Web 2.0 materializes at the cross of these technologies.
Again, it is more important to rely on what is essential to web 2.0, or what is common to different web 2.0 technologies, in order to conceptualise this environment. Web 2.0 is an environment with an immense diversity in sources of information, and in which the mediation of technology seems to insure a certain degree of ‘looseness’ in ties which relate individuals within a group.
The relatively low barriers to expression on the digital sphere insure that information sources remain diverse, and I will assume that the impersonality of the technological interface (i.e. the computer screen) keeps users safe from an predominant intellectual influence of certain members of a group. (however this thought is to contrast with work on persuasive technologies). These two characteristics of the Web 2.0 environment are also those which defined the secure environment for independent thinkers.
Therefore the Web 2.0 environment, located at the cross of web 2.0 technologies, is close to the requirements of an environment in which independent thinkers thrive and collective intelligence is likely to fulfil.
November 25, 2007 at 3:30 am
Although your mindmap is perhaps too small to read, a process regroups a number of activities and tasks and by definition implies inputs, outputs, costs and benefits. The inputs are the needs of the customer, either at the level of the student or at the customer organization. The output is the product or service that meets this need. The costs are the resources used to produce the service, and the benefits are measured either in savings (time, resource) or in terms of innovation, passion, etc. Would the next step in your analysis be suggesting that schools (or customers) map out the existing state (”current state”) of each process, and the desired future state? Would the gap between the two point out what opportunities might exist for a service strategy based on Web 2.0?
November 26, 2007 at 7:00 am
I was talking to a senior IT player, and I asked him what he thought about web 2.0, and the fact that the term was used both in an undifferentiated manner and as if web 2.0 were an actual ‘thing.’ His reply was interesting: he said that, as a business involved in the delivery and promotion of technology, you can’t think of web 2.0 without first defining whether you’re talking in a B-2-B, or B-2-C or a C-2-C sense. I’d never thought of it this way before, and it got me to thinking that this might be a useful way to convcieve of applying the vague concept of web 2.0 more specifically…
November 26, 2007 at 4:47 pm
… for B-2-B, consider the the b-school supplying knowledge and competence-enhancements to corporations and organisations where these organisations are considered as whole entities. For B-2-C, consider b-schools supplying the above to individual learners, individual participants on executive education programmes. And for C-2-C, consider b-schools being out of the loop altogether; where learning takes place peer-to-peer, learner-to-learner, where this learning is not necessarily mediated via a b-school or any institution but where, inter alia, institutions may draw from the knowledge of that peer-to-peer network – if it can.
This to me seems like a more useful approach to mapping the nodes of web 2.0 onto the nodes of a networked approach to learning.
December 12, 2007 at 10:24 am
[...] expand upon a previous post addressing the meaning of web 2.0, the question of whether we can value learning 2.0 for educational purposes mainly relies on the [...]
December 13, 2007 at 11:48 am
L. Schlenker,
“Would the next step in your analysis be suggesting that schools (or customers) map out the existing state (”current state”) of each process, and the desired future state? Would the gap between the two point out what opportunities might exist for a service strategy based on Web 2.0?”
This is a very great way to represent the potential value of a 2.0 service strategy indeed. I will use this model to structure my study once I develop an analysis of specific business schools’ offer and ways forward using web 2.0.
December 13, 2007 at 11:59 am
“you can’t think of web 2.0 without first defining whether you’re talking in a B-2-B, or B-2-C or a C-2-C sense”
Executivezen, I think this thought is very useful in terms of understanding perspectives in making a business model out of Web 2.0. I will keep this distinction in mind for a later definition of such a model, and to try to understand what type of model could work for executive education.
Your thoughts got me into realising that my definition was too superficial for a good start of a study on a the value of web 2.0 for education. I revised it to add an essential notion which needs to be discussed to assess this value, the Web 2.0 ideology.
December 13, 2007 at 3:48 pm
[...] to a notion which is underlying to the participatory culture and web 2.0 in general, that being the belief in collective intelligence. Web 2.0 users belong to this participatory culture because they “believe their contributions [...]
January 14, 2008 at 8:09 pm
[...] What is Web 2.0? [...]