Interactive innovation through Social Software and Web 2.0 Thomas Ryberg PhD student e-Learning Lab, Department of Communication and Psychology [email_address] http://www.ell.aau.dk Made with Web 2.0 Logo-creator: http://msig.info/web2.php
Web 2.0 refers to a second generation of services available on the internet that let people collaborate , and share information online. They often allow for mass publishing (web-based social software). The term may include blogs and wikis . To some extent Web 2.0 is a buzzword, incorporating whatever is newly popular on the Web (such as tags and podcasts ), and its meaning is still in flux. Adapted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
May be a lot of buzz – but it’s buzz that’s supported and developed by Google, Yahoo and Microsoft…
Also the entire media landscape in DK has been re-organised to accommodate to ‘user generated content’ or ‘citizen journalism’! ( www.nationen.nu , luftskibet.information.dk, computerworld.dk, ditcentrum.dk)
Should we understand this as software and services or as a conceptual framework?
“ Web 1.0” “Web 2.0” Web 1.0 Web 2.0 Some Examples: www.furl.net , www.elgg.net , http://www.librarything.com Matrice above adapted from: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html Ofoto Flickr Akamai BitTorrent mp3.com Napster Britannica Online Wikipedia Personal websites Blogging Web services publishing Participation Content management systems Wikis Directories (taxonomy) Tagging ("folksonomy") Stickiness Syndication (RSS, XML)
Testimonials, or comments about the user by other users.
The ability to form connections between users
links to other users who are “friends” membership in “groups”
subscriptions or RSS feeds of “updates” from other users
The ability to post content in many forms: photos, videos, blogs
Comments and ratings on other users’ content
Tagging of own or others’ content
Some ability to control privacy and sharing.
More technical features, including a public API to allow third–party enhancements and “mash–ups,”
embedding of various rich content types ( e.g. , Flash videos), and communication with other users through internal e–mail or IM systems.
Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 by Graham Cormode and Balachander Krishnamurthy First Monday , Volume 13 Number 6 - 2 June 2008 http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2125/1972
Picture taken from: (Andersson, 2008) http://terrya.edublogs.org/2008/03/17/networks-versus-groups-in-higher-education/ Learner in the centre Let’s briefly explore some examples of this – there are however many other sites and mixes
Stigmercy Picture taken from: (Andersson, 2008) http://terrya.edublogs.org/2008/03/17/networks-versus-groups-in-higher-education/ Stigmergy is a mechanism of spontaneous, indirect coordination between agents or actions, where the trace left in the environment by an action stimulates the performance of a subsequent action, by the same or a different agent. Stigmergy is a form of self-organization . It produces complex, apparently intelligent structures, without need for any planning, control, or even communication between the agents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy
“ We 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 . The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.” (boyd & Ellison 2007, min fremhævning)
“ What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social networks .” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, min fremhævning)
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 13 (1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html
Like regular apps – but they’re online – web-office, calendar, news reader, Web OS etc.
Also stand alone apps – Google Earth
Discover, search, location, placeness, closeness
Collaborative editing, sharing calendars, Social networks – sharing placemarks, layers
Integration with maps, wikipedia, external sites
Easier exchange of content – RSS, mashups, widgets
Through various standards and technologies it has become easier to exchang ‘content’ between different systems
RSS-feeds (subscribe to what others bookmark, new videoes, news etc.)
E.g. Youtube videoes can be embedded elsewhere
Facebook can get info from Friendfeed, Delicious etc.
One can easilier integrate widgets and mashups on a page
“ Open” standards, Open APIs give way for WIDGETS – MASHUP
Sharing across different social constellations Homebase(s) – profile PLE Strength of tie Own content Friends’ content Groups’ content Collectives’ content – aggregated other Shared fields of interest – imagined communities Glued together by RSS, Widgets, ‘open standards’, open APIs – Streams of continuously evolving ‘data’ and ‘information’ that can be somewhat easily manipulated We all become entrance points into complex (overlapping) networks
Sharing, collaborating, connecting, networking, identity work – harnessing the power of both weak and strong ties in networks
Hive-intelligence (stupid term!) –
Two heads are better than one - one million heads are even better – Wikipedia; no central expert, but distributed intelligence (though questionable)
Folksonomies – the bottom-up approach –
the structure and what is important is decided by the users, not a central categorisation unit, what is hot news depends on the users, not an editor
User-driven innovation and user generated content –
people upload and share their homemade pictures, videoes, bookmarks, calendars etc. creating ’creative’ personal profiles through use of scripting, widgets, light-weight coding, mashups and so on.
Funny tension : Copy-left, Open Source, Free software foundation – information should be free vs. We make shit-loads of money on idiots freely giving their videos away and all their personal information (Google, Youtube, Facebook, MySpace etc.) – hence some call it loser-driven innovation
Understanding how technologies speak into people’s lives, identities and connects to their streams of experience, their being in the world and connection to others – the social fabric of life!
Creating architectures of meaningful participation, opportunities for engaging with peers, networks and developing situations, events, life-bits
Hackability, widgetality – keep it open, modifiable, listen to and understand the users, let them play, hack, modify, develop
This is equally true for ordinary products – medical equipment, sporting equipment and loads of other products benefit from engaged user communities (Franke & Shah, 2002 - How Communities Support Innovative Activities )
The perpetual beta! You’re never done, people’s needs will change, their practices and ways of using the systems will develop and change, which in turn will mean you’ll have to change the systems to accommodate to emerging needs
New ways of organising and managing development and innovation – www.cofundos.org – also the Linux community has (I have been told) created a new way of adding updates – from hierarchy to distributed, networked ’voting’ system – building on reputation and social capital of the programmer (anybody knows more?)
Gluing and weaving of systems Bibsonomy Bloglines Flickr MySpace YouTube Furl Dodgeball Librarything Web 2.0 -systems – gluing and weaving together different content, services and systems