A reaction to articles :

1. “What is Web 2.0?”The collapse of the dot-coms brings about a change in the internet – we get Web 2.0.  I actually didn’t know what any of this meant.  What is Web 2.0?  I’m sure this is a question a lot of people had, as it is the topic of this article.  This concept became more clear to me when I saw the table that O’Reilly included, which compares Web 1.0 to Web 2.0.  Britannica Online –> Wikipedia ; personal websites –> blogging.  These are a few of the evolutions that occurred from 1.0 to 2.0, and seeing this gave me some clarity.

 You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core.  – Tim O’Reilly

Web 2.0 doesn’t have boundaries, but rather is a collective system of interchangeable parts (or at least that is what I’m getting out of this).   As someone that doesn’t know all of the terminology, this article was fairly good to read.  I didn’t feel terribly lost, and when I did, Google was my friend.  He compares and contrasts a few examples of some changes from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. (e.g. Netscape vs. Google). A lot of what he pushed as being important were things that had to do with the software (I think I am using this term correctly?) being not only published but also open for participation.  Flexibility also seemed important, and what I mean by that is that it should be evolving continuously, and not be so much an immovable platform.  Web 2.0 reaches out to more people (e.g. in advertising, it’s more spread out).  It gets better as more people use it, making it more collective.  To me, it sounds like a strong community sharing resources, services, and information.  I like that he pointed out:

You can almost make the case that if a site or product relies on advertising to get the word out, it isn’t Web 2.0.

The information about blogging was helpful, as I was just wondering what RSS stands for (Really Simple Syndication ) Also, the explanation of all the data / databases that websites use (e.g. Amazon and Mapquest) was something I hadn’t really thought about.  Overall, I thought this article was very informative in explaining what Web 2.0 is.

2. “Web 2.0 Storytelling” I really found this to be an enjoyable and fairly easy read.  Bryan Alexander starts off by talking about a lot of interesting blogs, all of which sound really famous… but I’ve never heard of them, and I’m intrigued.  It reminded me of article #1 in that it talks a lot about the collaboration that is involved in Web 2.0, that so much of the web is about people communicating and sharing ideas.  It truly is a bag of gold (see assignment 2).  This article really gets into the storytelling aspect of the internet.  It is capable of a story in which many different people can participate in (reminds me of article #1, the more people involved the better it gets… the idea of group collaboration and participation that Web 1.0 didn’t have).  The Dracula project sounds like fun.  I Googled it and found this blog, which (I believe…) is different, as a woman created it, but it looks like a similar concept. He also talks about the ease of blogging, and how this ease translates to Web 2.0.  From reading this and the previous article, it seems like Web 2.0 is overall a little more user-friendly.

I love the Dracula project.  I Googled it and found this (although I don’t think this is what he did, as a woman created it…).  But still, a very interesting twist on storytelling using a non-print medium.   I love the quote by Virginia Heffernan:

He notes on a few sites from the social Web (i.e. Twitter, Wikipedia, Flickr, Facebook…) and talks about how each of these has the capabilities of being used as a tool for storytelling.  To me, this really ties in a lot of what was mentioned in article #1 (about how the web as evolved) and the art of storytelling.  Comments make the potential for stories, and this really applies to anything created and published online, to become better or different than they were originally intended to be.  To me, Web 2.0 is so much better because it allows development that includes the participation that was not as evident on Web 1.0… this criticism or encouragement is crucial for growth to occur.

3. “Seven Things You Should Know about Creative Commons”

This explains Creative Commons copyright policy.  I support copyright laws, but I also support sharing knowledge.  Knowing how to appropriately give credit to individuals who have their stuff copyrighted on the web seems important to me, as no one wants to get stuck with their pants down (and by pants down, I mean taking someone’s work).  This applies to article #1 in that with Web 2.0, there are a lot of opportunities for purposeful and accidental copyright infringement.  The sharing and creating that is available today on the web is huge.  Posting anything online risks someone taking your ideas or something you have created, as it is a world of active participation.  As a blogger, or a photographer, or a scholar, I think it is important to understand how this works, to make sure people are getting credit for their work.  This applies to article #2 in that social networking in Web 2.0 is full of sharing.  The first thing this made me think of is Facebook, and how they own all of my photographs.  As an uploader of images, I think having this understanding of how to get credit or give credit is important.