Web 2.0 hype has subsided, largely replaced with terms like “social media”. Adding a “2.0″ to anything dates it – immediately. Because it’s just a matter of time before someone comes along and says “3.0″. Defining software by version number i.e. x.0 makes sense because software is bounded. Windows 98 shares some features with Vista, but overall, it’s a distinct piece of software. Real life – like learning – can’t be reduced to a bounded entity like software, making “2.0″ versions largely useless as a means of communicating unique elements. Which is why articles like this – Web 3.0 promises changes for libraries – are disappointing. On the one hand, the concepts being discussed are important: blending virtual/physical worlds, 3D technologies, semantic web, and real-time web. But, the language used to describe these trends (web 3.0) is not helpful as it casts an air of hype. Naming things is difficult; a fine line exists between capturing the essence of change…and between becoming buzzword-based hype.
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
-
Tags
Adoption Articles Blogging Classification/Ontologies Collaboration Community Connectivism Content Content Management Copyright/IP/DRM Design Elearning Evaluation/Assessment/ROI Games/Simulations Information Architecture Innovation Instructional Design Knowledge Management Learning Learning Objects Legal LMS Media Networks Open Source Podcasting Random Thoughts Research Resources ROI Search Semantic Web SNA Social Standards Storytelling Teaching Technology Theories Tools Trends Usability Wiki Wireless/PDAs XML
-
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
Blogroll
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
One Comment
I’ve had this discourse for a few years now. What we call Web 2.0 is in no way a new version of the Web, it is simply a continuing evolution from static content to interactive content to collaborative content. Using version number to identify phases of evolution implies that the change can be pin pointed in time while it is in fact a continuous process.
2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] immediately. Because it’s just a matter of time before someone comes along and says “3.0″. Link Categories: Social Media in Education, eLearning Tags: eLearning, Social Media in Education, [...]
[...] got me thinking about hype and innovation. The first was a post by George Siemens talking about Web 3.0 for libraries. George critiques an article by saying that the ideas in it are basically sound, but that by [...]