Short Studies 5. Diamond Web2.0
"He said, 'For instance, what a student in Guangzhou prefers may be exactly opposite to that of a student in Beijing, and in CityIN we try our best to cater for different preferences'."
CityIn: A Lifestyle Social Networks Written by Tangosaon March 5, 2008
– What does it mean for social networking to search for sameness?
– How is such sameness dealing with its opposites?
– Which kinds of opposites do we know, and know to use?
– How global is social networking if it is limited to one and only one world-model?
– What does it mean that Web2.0 is mobile if it is restricted to information exchange with all its features of text, sound, video, and more?
– Will social networking not dry out soon and becoming boring if it is not able to support inter-actional creativity?
– Is it necessary to reduce the Web2.0 possibilities to global Web Services?
The following study is risking a very first approach to such questions by applying the Diamond Strategies.
Towards a Diamond Web2.0?
The Web2.0 understanding of societal activities is based on a non-societal model of hierarchical, mono-centered and solipsistic orientation.
Sociologically, it is based on the dichotomic distinction of the singular private and the plural public.
A first step to diamondize Web2.0 approaches has not to go into the basics of transforming Web2.0 into the dynamic semantic Web3.0, it would be a reasonable transitional step, first to diamondize the existing technologies and user interfaces of Web2.0.
This could happen along the main metaphors of the Web2.0: social, global, mobile in connection to interactional and reflectional.
The sketched ideas for a diamondization of Web2.0 technologies is taking the slightly futuristic position to propose Diamond Web2.0 from the position of the insights into the emerging Web3.0 and contrasting it from the more traditionalist concepts and technologies of the Web1.0.
In this sense, Diamond Web2.0 could be understood as a transitional concept to a social Web3.0, hence as a Web2.5.
With Chang, I try to avoid the interesting discussion about the technological legitimacy of such a thing as Web2.0. There are enough arguments pro and contra, especially from the standpoint of Web1.0, to deny the technological relevancy of the term Web2.0.
But also from the position of an emerging semantic Web, i.e. Web3.0, Web2.0 is lacking significant conceptual changes to challenge the well known concepts and technologies of Web1.0.
On the other hand, it seems, that enough new features emerged, at least in the general use of the Web, i.e. Web services, to put it together as Web2.0.
A little typology of the development of the Web is sketched. The idea behind this typology is to reflect on the degree of the involvement of the user (subject, reflexivity) into its usage.
It is also proposed that in contrast to the main stream opinion, the difference of surface- and deep-structure of the Internet and its form of usage, is of great relevancy.
Obviously, the pragmatic terminology of use, usage and user is applied, and for Web4.0, deconstructed, against its singularity.
It is obvious that this little typology is not proposing a predictional or futurological typology or design in the sense of Spivak and Kurzweil, but nothing more than a conceptual offer for possible orientations in what is and what might emerge in the future of the Web.
It seems that such a change in optics, towards conceptual and paradigmatic analysis, is a necessary step to wake up from an enthusiastic but unrealistic dream.
1. the information tools using user, Web1.0,
2. the media participant user, Web2.0,
3. the knowledge producing and sharing user, Web3.0,
4. the paradigm co-creating (interacting and intervening) user, Web4.0.
Content of the Study:
1. Diamond Strategies
2. Interactional diamondization
3. Web2.0 as "social”:: Social networking
4. .................."global":: World-models
5. ..................."mobile”:: Metamorphosis
6. ...................“Interactional and reflectional"
Full Study (in progress!):