The following links may help navigating this page
WHO Disease Outbreak News

Geek Reading: Web 2.0 · 2005-10-19

There is this other buzz word that crosses my paths annoyingly frequent. What is this Web 2.0 thing anyway? I had a quick glance at this O'Reilly article, which is long and tends to take buzz names and buzz words from the late nineties and link them to current buzz words. Is there more then recycling aged buzz to Web 2.0? The following author went to a conference on Web 2.0, which is already rebaptised Bubble 2.0. Here's just a snippet of the newsforge article which is worth reading completely:

I thought giddily for a minute that I should run to the Office Depot across the street from the Argent Hotel (where the conference is being held) and grab some blank CDs. I could then come back to my room and make a slide presentation for a business that would develop a VoIP-based multimedia wiki that would track disintermediated community-generated podcast blog reviews. It would be based on open source software, of course. And cross-platform. And extensible and highly scalable.

Conclusion: Web 2.0 is a great venture capital magnet, just as well as Web 1.0 used to be. Can we even recycle an aged hype? This surely is something that hasn't been done often. In the eyes of the Rough Type Web 2.0 stands for participation, collectivism, virtual communities, amateurism. This is basically what I think Web 2.0 represents. His article is very long as well, but gives you a whole lot of insight as well as some laughs. Unfortunately he ends up in 'criticising gravitation' somehow:

... Web 2.0, like Web 1.0, is amoral. It's a set of technologies ... that alters the forms and economics of production and consumption. It doesn't care whether its consequences are good or bad. It doesn't care whether it brings us to a higher consciousness or a lower one. It doesn't care whether it burnishes our culture or dulls it. It doesn't care whether it leads us into a golden age or a dark one. ...

Sorry, Rough Type, the same holds for the invention of 'printing', it layed off loads and loads of monks, who weren't needed to copy the bible anymore. The same holds for the invention of radio and television, for people didn't need to read anymore. The same holds for the invention of writing, for it distracted people from the spoken word as ancient greek philosophers put it once. In fact, it holds for any technology that exists. Technologies are amoral. So what. All I see is a bunch of nerds who made up some buzz words to collect capital. Probably, they'll spend it on lofts and vintage pacman machines. That's all.

Commenting is closed for this article.