WEB 2.0 PRIMER

Web 2.0 refers to a process that is occurring within the Web. Some say the Web is growing up, that it is witnessing a maturation process, and they accept Web 2.0 as conventional wisdom. Others have a more “wait and see” attitude at best, or they decry Web 2.0 as nothing more than marketing hype. Still others think that Web 2.0 offers the possibility to change the world.

The word “Web 2.0” was coined by Tim O’Reilly, of O’Reilly Media, Inc. In an article entitled quite simply, What Is Web 2.0, O’Reilly provides a detailed description of Web 2.0 that is interesting, if somewhat complicated for the layperson. If you think about it a bit, though, it’s really not that complicated. Most of us who have been on the Web at all, even those of us who are indifferent or impervious to developments such as Web 2.0, have bumped into it on eBay or Wikipedia. Still, here are the cliff notes!

O’Reilly tells us that Web 2.0 doesn’t have a boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. He envisions 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 the core.” His meme map, pictured below, shows what he means. (Click on the image to view or print out a better version).

In O’Reilly’s interpretation of Web 2.0, the Web is positioned as platform and the user positioned to control his or her own data. Companies that demonstrate Web 2.0 qualities are pictured in the green ovals above the orange square, with those closest to the square exhibiting the most Web 2.0 characteristics. The more of the following qualities that a company exhibits, the more Web 2.0-oriented it is:

• Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
• Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
• Trusting users as co-developers
• Harnessing collective intelligence
• Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
• Software above the level of a single device
• Lightweight user interfaces, development models, and business model

Unlike Amazon, a company such as Barnes and Noble, for example, would not be described as Web 2.0-based, even though they sell the same products. Amazon’s trademark is “user engagement,” and they utilize the results from such, that is, the wisdom of the masses, to lead customers to the most popular items first. Barnes and Noble, on the other hand, is smaller, features less user participation, and a search on their site is likely to yield the company’s products first. Their business model is presumably more traditional than Amazon’s.

That some Web 2.0-based companies claim not to possess or be able to describe their business model has been worrisome to some observers who blog on the Web 2.0 phenomenon. Among these bloggers is Mark Evans, who provides a distinctly Canadian perspective on the world of telecom and technology. Others such as Dion Hinchcliff, a self-described Bubble 1.0 survivor, acknowledge that there’s a lot of money to be made and a lot of “stuff” being made for Web 2.0, and wouldn’t we love to cash in, but they’re watching to see if we’re headed for another version of the 90’s dot.com bubble. Then there are those who exhibit open antipathy toward alleged Web 2.0 hype, as found in humorous sites such as EmptyBottle.org.

In his article, What is this thing called Web 2.0?, Kenneth Ronkowitz, Adjunct Instructor at New Jersey Institute of Technology, lists a number of current Web 2.0 applications. His list got me thinking about the implications of Web 2.0 for non-profit organizations (NPOs). Web 2.0, after all, appears to democratize the web in many respects—at least it seems so at this point. According to Thomas L. Friedman, Web 2.0—the technology, culture and business—mashes geography and flattens the world. Indeed! Besides this, another happy reality for NPOs is that many web tools and applications are free or low-cost. Thus, it is not surprising to find a growing number of services and applications targeting the fundraising and social networking needs of non-profit organizations.

Daniel Ben-Horin, founder of CompuMentor, NetSquared, and its subsidiary TechSoup, was quoted by MSNBC in a June 2006 article as follows: “Information technology is moving away from what nonprofits have the least of (money) and toward what we have the most of (people and community). Web 2.0 is a buzzword that may not last, but the social Web will, and what we’re seeing now is just the beginning."

He's right about that. Web 2.0 is the beginning of an adventure--for commerce, for non-profits, for many, if not all of us. The MSNBC article should serve to remind us that there are those who will be left out--the elderly, those without access, those whom non-profits serve. There are those, too, who may be endangered by the ability to more easily express their opinions from dangerous places. In addition, the of growth of Web 2.0 ushers in an era of greater concern about copyright, governance, privacy and numerous other issues that were cited in this blog several posts ago in relation to the Michael Wesch video, The Machine is Us/ing Us. As with many social trends and technological developments, Web 2.0 presents promise as well as problems. It will take time to understand and figure it all out.