Hello again.
Well here is the part I was dreading, as I did have to read the Reader very slowly to try and understand all of the information.
I used the O'Reilly link given to try to understand more about the 'meme' and it definitely helped, and it gives a lot of useful information on the differences on Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228
I have always thought that Wikipedia was a reliable source, (which I'm sure I'm not the only one) and I still do to an extent, but I now realize that more options are available to attempt to get accurate information. I do completely understand the logic in this, that with Web 2.0 you have absolutely millions of people on the web blogging and giving out knowledge (on Twitter, Facebook etc), and using these multiple participation methods online can eventually get you solid results, rather than putting all hopes on one. I know that I don't use Web 2.0 enough and am now starting to realize the benefits.
We would be lost without Web 2.0 if it was taken away. Social networking is a daily part of most people's lives, and I've realized how vital participation methods are now in the present day. I for one have been very ignorant and take it for granted. It is remarkable how different Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 is.
My only differ on getting accurate information is that in some cases you may find yourself struggling to find exact truth, as there could be a number of different opinions on a subject you are looking for with links given to provide proof of each individuals' knowledge, giving results in full. Hence, it could lead to absolute confusion forcing an individual to the library to find an original source, or any Web 1.0 facility where participation is unavailable. I therefore believe that in a few cases we will have to go for an original source or go for the most popular and agreed information. I have often done research on many things and I have had to go along these lines of sticking with the most agreed information, plus, sources with images which I think are a great way to prove anything. Saying all this, that's life isn't it? I think I have a lot to learn about using resources on Web 2.0. These are only my initial thoughts for now. Saying that though, I do believe that you learn something every day, beyond your original research which can be useful in any career. That's Web 2.0.
I much prefer interaction and participation than all that makes Web 2.0, it encourages others to share knowledge of their own, which is helping others even if it wasn't your aim to do so. I'm sure I've shared stuff that may have helped somebody in some way. You can create and/or take part. Collaboration is useful in so many ways today and I'm glad Web 2.0 was born.
It is also so strange to realize that on these sites such as blogs or personal web pages, strangers can communicate with you, and I never thought of it in that way before. They are strangers, (except of course your friends on facebook) but with Web 2.0 it doesn't feel like you are talking with and teaming up with strangers, it feels totally natural. Even on facebook with the people you know, but perhaps aren't particularly that close to, you suddenly feel close and have something in common; Social networking, and any status or photo you put up will get you comments from these people because of their own reflection and/or empathy.
I am still unsure on Remixable data and transformations, so I will try to give my thoughts on that once I've cracked it ha ha. The thoughts above are based on Architectures of participation and Harnessing collective intelligence. I am sure to understand more on Web 2.0 over the next year.
Happy studying!! xx
xxx
(apologies for any incorrect grammar, but I hope it's understandable)
Hi Kimberly
ReplyDeleteI see where you are coming from, but who's to say that the information in the book, or that information written on Web 1.0 platforms is correct? All information was once someone's opinion, and when enough people agree on that opinion it becomes fact. Before we knew the world was round it was accepted it was flat. However if you are looking for actual facts for example "When was the Battle of Hastings" I would always recommend double checking your information, regardless of the source.
I think the thing that should be celebrated about Web 2.0 is that we can now easily see many views on things and come to our own conclusions or opinions. Conversely, with the technologies Web 2.0 provides I think the exposure of ones own opinions if not censored or thought through can be damaging and irreversible.
On a separate note, I thought it might be helpful if everyone added the 'subscribe via email' option to their blog? You can find this in the 'layout' section of your blogger clicking on 'add a gadget' (I've put mine above my profile) and then choosing the 'subscribe via email' gadget. I thought this could save us all time as rather than checking everyday to see what's new, we would get an email telling us someone has a new blog topic. Just a thought! I'm going to post this to everyone.
Hi Megan,
ReplyDeleteYeah, that is my point exactly. In some cases we may not find the exact facts, hence I would then base my facts on the most agreed 'so called fact' and hope that it is right. I see what you mean my the original sources like books like the 'World used to be flat' according to many. But again sometimes conspiracy theories take over the original beliefs so then you truly are in a pickle haha I am not basing my opinion on single facts such as 'when was the battle of hastings?', which I believe to be fought in 1066, I mean WHOLE truths on particular subjects. With each individual parts that you find, we just have to go with the most popular, even if the least popular is in fact the exact truth. That's life I guess, but I do agree that the Web 2.0 is far better for getting truths and a lot simpler. ha ha.
I will try this 'subscribe by email'...I hope it doesn't take me long, being a little ditzy at times ha ha.
Thanks for your feedback. x
Hi Kimberly
ReplyDeleteI love a conspiracy theory!
I see where you are coming from, but I think the way children are taught to learn is so different now - they are taught to question everything! I think it would be interesting to set a class a task, half researching from books and half researching using Google and seeing what happens!
Megan