Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMMUNICATION FORM
Web 2.0 (2nd generation) is a dynamic tool that general public can use to access
information as well as contribute information. Unlike Web 2.0, Web 1.0 (1st
generation) was originally used as a tool to access information that was created
by small numbers. (Warschauer & Grimes 2007)
On the blog ‘Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0, the difference’, Saad Hamid reconfirms the
thoughts of Warschauer and Grimes that Web 2.0 is an evolving tool. The
diagram Hamid provides explains the differences possibly the best
(http://www.sizlopedia.com/wp‐content/uploads/web1_0‐vs‐web2_0.png) as
he identifies the differences between the two generations of the web. For Web
1.0 you have just got the web master writing or creating the website and the
internet surfers accessing the website. In Web 2.0 you have still got the web
master creating the website and surfers accessing the site, but now they are able
to create and contribute.
Through the emergence of tools and technology Internet surfers can now tag,
chat, blog, upload/download images, audio, video as well as file share. On the
other side of this you have also got the creation of online communities through
the use of Social Network Sites (SNSs).
Hamid poses the question ‘Do you think that web 2.0 has helped users get more
interactive or do you think it is just a propaganda term created to wipe out the
old web standards?’ (http://www.sizlopedia.com/2007/08/18/web‐10‐vs‐web‐
20‐the‐visual‐difference/) Thinking about this, Web 2.0 has helped users become
more interactive. Look at what we are doing in this subject DIGC101,
traditionally you would attend a lecture than a tutorial where you would discuss
and debate about what you have learned during that week, whereas in DIGC101
we have created a little specific social network groups with the use of certain
tools such as twitter, blogs (tumblr, blogger, twitwall) and SNSs (Myspace,
Facebook).
With the introduction of the second generation web (Web 2.0) blogs have
become a large tool for the general web user to create an identity to
communicate their thoughts and beliefs to wider audience. As Doorn, Zoonen
and Wyatt state ‘If this ‘new forum’ is also capable of instigating new ways in
which this ‘self’ can be presented, weblogs could potentially offer new
perspectives on the relation between the Internet and the expression of identity.’
This can be easily related to the DIGC101 project of creating an online identity.
My identity I decided is a music blogger, I will report and comment on any new
music (albums and concerts) and news that I may come across.
The term blog short for web log originates from the practice of diary or journal
writing and is commonly posted in reverse chronological order. (Warschauer &
Grimes pp. 5)
Warschauer and Grimes (2007 pp. 5) suggest that the majority of blogs fall
within two main styles. Personal journals, which predates the Internet in the
form of diaries and personal letters reporting on the individual’s personal
thoughts and day‐to‐day experiences. The second take the form of an
informative writing such as a newspaper column or pamphlet with the aim to
inform, agitate or persuade on social or political issues.
With this second style of blog in mind Kenix states ‘In response to a distrust of
mainstream journalism, alternative media forms have existed in numerous forms
beside mainstream journalism for centuries. An opinioned and stylized form of
reporting that focused on the subjective interpretations surfaced in the 1960s
which is believed to be the precursor to the modern political current events
blog.’ (2009 pp. 791)
With blogging still seen as a relative new form of communication, it opens the
door for defamation or online bullying (Cyber bullying).
The Australian reported (August 20, 2009) a recent case in America which saw
an ex Vogue model sue Google to reveal the identity of a blogger who was
posting damaging comments about her on blog titled ‘Skanks of NYC’.
The ex model eventually winning the case, the court ordered Google to reveal the
identity of the blogger opening the door for questions to be raised regarding
privacy of users and whether companies like Google have a right to reveal users
private information.
Along with blogs, Social Network Sites (SNSs) are another product of Web 2.0.
boyd and Elisson (2008) define social network sites as “web‐based services that
allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi‐public profile within a
bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a
connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made
by others within the system.”(pp 211)
The first SNS SixDegrees was established in 1997, but the real boom of SNSs
didn’t occur until six years later in 2003. Between 2003 and 2006 saw the
conception of a total 34 SNSs. (boyd & Ellison 2008 pp. 212) Of the 34 sites,
Myspace, Facebook and twitter would have to be the ones that have seen the
largest amount of popularity growth within Australia.
Myspace was launched in 2003 with the vision to compete with already
established SNSs Friendster, Xanga and AsianAvenue. At the time Friendster was
the ‘it’ SNS, but Friendster’s users began to become alienated due to rumours
that Friendster was going to become a fee based service. As a result users began
to join alternative sites, mainlyMyspace.
It is believed one main factor as to why Myspace grew in popularity so quickly
was the group of indie‐rock bands encouraging fans to cross over due to the fact
they were expelled for failing to meet the profile regulations set out by
Friendster. (boyd & Ellison 2008 pp. 216 ‐ 217)
Greenhow and Robelia (2009, pp. 1132 – 1133) reported that since the
introduction of SNSs in the late 1990’s sites such as Myspace and Facebook have
attracted millions of users. It is suggested that 55% of teens that are online in the
U.S. have created a personal profile on Myspace orFacebook. It is also claimed
that an average of 9 hours a week are devoted visiting their social network site.
Facebook was originally developed in 2004 to provide a distinct social network
for Harvard college students. As a result only users that had a harvard.edu email
address where able to join. In 2005 Facebook expanded to cater high school
networks and ultimately in 2006 Facebook was made available to the general
public. (boyd & Ellison 2008 pp. 218)
It is claimed as of 2007 Facebook had a reported 21 million registered members
generating 1.6 billion page views each day. (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe 2007)
Facebook and Myspace both depend on a bi‐directional confirmation of
friendship unlike twitter which uses a one‐directional confirmation called “fans”
or “followers”.
The term “friends” used by Myspace and Facebook can be viewed as misleading,
because the connection does not necessarily mean friendship in the everyday
vernacular sense. (boyd & Ellison 2008 pp. 213)
Personally I have noticed it has become almost of a status symbol to friend as
many people as possible on Myspace and Facebook. I am always receiving friend
requests from people I personally do not know, even people that share the same
surname.
Like blogs SNSs are facing similar issues within society, as an 18 year old female
from England has become the first to be jailed for posting death threats to a
fellow student on Facebook. Although people have been convicted for
harassment and stalking on SNSs it is claimed she is the first to be convicted for
cyber bullying. (Salkeld 2009)
Since the evolution of web 1.0 to web 2.0 it has opened the door to endless
possibilities.
Through the use of blogs and SNSs it has given the user the possibility to create
an identity they wouldn’t normally have in reality, such as my identity that I have
created for myself.
With the guidance of the subject DIGC101 and the use of various tools such as
tumblr and twitter I have created the identity of a music blogger with the blog
titled ‘Keeping with the beat!’
Reference List:
boyd, danah & Ellison, Nicole 2007, ‘Social Networking Sites: Definition, History,
and Scholarship’, Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, Vol. 13, no. 1,
pp. 210 – 230
Ellison, Nicole & Steinfield, Charles & Lampe, Cliff, 2007, ‘The Benefits of
Facebook ‘Friends’: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social
Network Sites’, Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, Vol. 12, no. 4, pp.
1143 – 1168
Greenhow, Christine & Robelia, Beth 2009, ‘Old Communication, New Literacies:
Social Network Sites as Social Learning Resources’, Journal of Computer‐
Mediated Communication, Vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1130 – 1161
Hamid, Saad 2007, ‘Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0, the difference’, August 18, weblog post,
Sizlopedia, accessed 24 August 2009,
http://www.sizlopedia.com/2007/08/18/web‐10‐vs‐web‐20‐the‐visual‐
difference/
Kenix, Linda Jean 2009, ‘Blogs as Alternative’, Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication, Vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 790 – 822
Salkeld, L 2009, ‘Facebook bully jailed: Death threat girl, 18, is first person put
behind bars for vicious internet campaign’ The Daily Mail, 21/8/2009,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article‐1208147/First‐cyberbully‐jailed‐
Facebook‐death‐threats.html
‘Vogue model Liskula Cohen’s court win on skank gibe’, The Australian, 20
August, accessed 26/8/2009,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25954891‐
17044,00.html
Warschauer, Mark and Grimes, Douglas 2007, ‘Audience, Authorship, and
Artefact: The Emergent Semiotics of web 2.0’, Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, Vol. 27, pp. 1 – 23