(This blog is written as a reflection this article.)

Where to begin..I guess I should start by saying that I’m really glad this class is not based on formal, traditional academic mores. If that were the case, what I’m about to write could possibly get me the sternest of stern looks, multiple pride lacerations from a viciously sharp, faux-English accented tongue, or maybe even strangled with a tweed jacket.

In this blog, for this class, it’s no problem at all for me to begin by saying that I find the author’s writing style downright dreadful. The words he used are reminiscent of ones that may be screamed into a Bluetooth earpiece by a stereotypical businessman as he runs over poor people in his 7-series BMW. Though I think he did manage to avoid using the word “synergy”, so that’s a plus.

It is completely and totally replete with jargon, which I didn’t really like (though found absolutely unavoidable) while I was in the Navy and I don’t like now. But maybe I’m judging too harshly. It probably is intended for a business-minded audience, after all, making my mockery somewhat unfair. And I should at least give my own opinion on the topic, not just make jokes.

Well, I find that UMW ds106 student Jeannette Shaffer (codename: Wandering Pooch) neatly sums up my own opinion when she says that  ”Like some I think Web 2.0 was a natural progression of the internet and not this big earth shattering event.”

O’Reilly makes a big deal, in my opinion, about how the Web 1.0 companies seemed to rely on traditional business models, i.e. selling software and internet products like any other product that had existed previously, and Web 2.0 companies conducted business in the context of the Internet.

…Ok.

Well…

Of course! You can’t blame the first wave of companies for trying to relate to something that had been done previously (how else could the uninitiated attempt to understand it?) and it’s no surprise that the second wave of companies improved upon these methods.

Aren’t you glad this blog post wasn’t 5 pages long?