Hk2007 Web20


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 3(93)
  • Hk2007 Web20

    1. 1. A Web 2.0 Of and By the People September 2007 By: Henry Kim & Friends (not really) ^
    2. 2. The 2.0 Version of the Web is Everyone’s Web <ul><li>It can be a star’s Web </li></ul><ul><li>Or it can be the Web of Judson Laipply (who???) </li></ul>
    3. 3. Web 2.0 according to gOd <ul><li>i.e. Wikipedia </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The phrase Web 2.0 refers to a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosted services — such as social-networking sites, wikis and folksonomies — which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing between users. The term became popular following the first O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004 and has since become widely adopted. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to Web technical specifications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the web as a platform. According to Tim O'Reilly, &quot;Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.&quot; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some technology experts, notably Tim Berners-Lee, have questioned whether one can use the term in a meaningful way, since many of the technology components of &quot;Web 2.0&quot; have existed since the early days of the Web. </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Introduction to Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 1.0 was commerce; Web 2.0 is people. – Ross Mayfield </li></ul><ul><li>Means different things to different people. </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasizing tools and platforms that enable the user to Tag, Blog, Comment, Modify, Augment, Rank, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>A more explicit synonym would be “participatory Web.” </li></ul>
    5. 5. The hodgepodge that is Web 2.0
    6. 6. Blah(g), blah(g), blah(g)…
    7. 7. Use Web 2.0 to explain Web 2.0 <ul><li> </li></ul>
    8. 8. Social Networking <ul><li>MySpace </li></ul><ul><li>Facebook </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>http:// </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    9. 9. Social Network as Knowledge <ul><li>Web 1.0: Organizing explicit “book” knowledge – what you know </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Digitizing “intellectual capital” for easy access </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0: Also organizing more implicit “relationship” knowledge – who you know </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Digitizing “social capital” for easy access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social capital gives us easy access to intellectual capital </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is this an efficient search though? Do you know someone who know someone who might answer my question? Or, let me just find it via Google or on Wikipedia </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Alas, Google can’t get you a job like LinkedIn can, or find you a friend like MySpace can. </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. “Six Degrees of Separation” <ul><li>Experiment in 1968 of Social Networks (Communities) [Milgram] </li></ul><ul><li>On Average, Chain of Six People Required for Letter to Get from Nebraska to Stockbroker in Boston </li></ul><ul><li>Why 6? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If social networks random, should be less than 6 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If social networks very structured (cliquish), should be greater than 6 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>6, Because Social Networks Exhibit Small-World Properties </li></ul><ul><ul><li>People form small-worlds </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A few people, “bridges,” belong to many disparate small-worlds </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. What Are Small-World Networks? p is the probability that a connection is random, completely independent of proximity
    12. 12. What Are Characteristics of Small-World Networks? L ( p ): typical separation between two vertices in the graph C ( p ): cliquishness of a typical neighbourhood <ul><li>There is a broad interval of p over which L ( p ) is almost as small as L random yet C ( p ) >> C random . </li></ul><ul><li>These small-world networks result from the immediate drop in L ( p ) caused by the introduction of a few long-range edges. </li></ul><ul><li>Such 'short cuts' connect vertices that would otherwise be much farther apart than L random . </li></ul>It means that as long as there are at least a few “bridge nodes” or “boundary spanners” or “mavens,” news/gossip/job requests can spread quickly in the world even though people for the most part stay in their cliques
    13. 13. Bridges in a Social Network Who’s important here?
    14. 14. Learning from Milgram’s Experiment <ul><li>Strategies Used by Subjects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Exploiting Knowledge about Recipient: Letters often sent to east coast and/or financial services workers (what you know) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exploiting Community Structures: 48% of all received letters sent by 3 people to recipient (who you know) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Key to Experiment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Common Understanding: “People you know on a first name basis” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Key to Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Digitize relationships (people I’ve linked to, people who’ve also used the tag “Schulich”) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In essence, digitizes trust, authority, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Enabled by Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Digitize the who-knows-who knowledge (the what-knowledge is already digitized) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In essence, digitizes a global perspective from individual perspectives </li></ul></ul><ul><li>True value of Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enables individuals to leverage social capital and acumen for competitive advantage </li></ul></ul>Just as a ma and pa store in Alberta could sell cowboy boots to Japan in Web 1.0 Judson Laipply can have the most popular video ever on Web 2.0