Boutin primarily argues that Web 2.0 comprises too much jargon. What are consumer-generated media? What exactly is a platform, and why does it describe the Web today? Indeed, O’Reilly’s article inundates the reader with buzzwords that are unknown to most people who do not follow the Internet and its most recent developments through personal and/or industry blogs.

Take O’Reilly’s compact definition of Web 2.0 (linked by Boutin) as an example:

Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an “architecture of participation,” and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.

The concept is definitely hard to follow, and O’Reilly’s sentences of multiple clauses do not facilitate the task. However, it makes sense (intuitively), that Web 2.0 applications rely on a human aspect that previous applications ignored. What stands out is the notion that individual users provide data to retrieve even larger amounts of data, and that this cooperation fuels the “architecture of participation”. I digress, for I am returning to the same concepts that intrigued me only a blog ago.

What I find validates Boutin’s article is his argument that web developers, people in Silicon Valley, and publicists think of Web 2.0 as a completely different concept, which is in turn completely different from what O’Reilly considers it to be.

Whereas web developers see it as a language and software that are integrated into tools that are easy and free to use, as well as to interconnect (the notion of hyperlinks), those in Silicon Valley see it as the possibility of using the input of millions of users as a substitute for employees’ ideas when generating content. Publicists, in turn, see Web 2.0 as a misleading term that is always surrounded by “protective quotes”. Clearly, the conflict generated by competing definitions is a conflict of interests—Web 2.0 can generate profit, content, and confusion.

I must say that while I also find the term to be ambiguous in its definition, I do not see it as a meaningless buzzword. Perhaps a better buzzword would represent it in a more appropriate manner—if Web 2.0 is about human involvement, cooperation, and integrated developments, then its name should reflect that. However, since the term has been coined and has generated sufficient controversy, calling it a “Web coop” would not do much good. Web 2.0 is complex but not innocuous, and if it is able to foster further cooperation, then it will have been much more than a ‘meaningless buzzword’.

The term Web 2.0 has generated a significant amount of controversy, nevertheless creating awareness about the current trends in digital technology.  The coining of the term is generally attributed to Tim O’Reilly, founder and CEO of O’Reilly Media. His article “What is Web 2.0?” attempted to define the concept in terms of the systems that create it and the principles that sustain it.

Of greatest import to Web 2.0 is the idea of “the web as a platform”. In absolute terms, the “platform” is hard to define. Its underlying concept is easier to grasp if placed in the context of what it is not: an application. As I mentioned a few paragraphs ago, the applications and its proprietors held consumers at their exclusive mercy. We helplessly waited for a new release. Yet with Web 2.0, we are now experiencing a consumer-driven revolution, as we take the power of the immense information database that fuels the Internet into our own hands and giving back to it with contributions that are anything but negligible.

This is not to say that Web 2.0 relies on the ability of laymen (or women) to develop new software. Still, the diminished (if not extinguished) need for applications relies on fewer instances of proprietary control over software, which is in turn evidenced by the development of open-source technology. According to O’Reilly, Web 2.0 is inherently human, strengthened by an “architecture of participation” that supports a framework in which users and consumers become co-developers.

If consumers are engaged in the development processes, then it would seem logical that the end-products would be customized with the consumers’ needs in mind. In an age in which people are able to disseminate their thoughts at the click of a few buttons, consumer satisfaction can make or break software—making user-generated (or user-improved) software an even more influential concept that sustains the general notion of Web 2.0: a cooperative revolution in the hands of many people.

More specifically, the latest technology report on How Americans Use Their Cell Phones released by the Pew Internet and American Life Project provided insight on people’s inability and desire to use their cell phones more effectively. The report showed that

When it comes to the features Americans would like to add to their cell phones, the desire for maps tops the charts by a clear margin. Fully 47% of cell owners say they would like this feature and 38% say they would like to have instant messages from select friends sent to their cells. Some 24% of cell owners say they would like to use their phones to conduct searches for services such as movie listings, weather reports, and stock quotes. And a similar 24% of cell owners would like to add email to their mobile-phone functionality.

This means that while cell phones do not cease to evolve, consumers at large are having a hard time keeping up with the speed of evolution. Though the previous statement is a obviously gross generalization, it does shed light on the deficient user-friendliness aspect of cell phones.  Few people seem to know how much their cell phones can do, imagining that only smartphones have wireless capabilities like email and instant messaging, which would suggest that either a) only a few, technologically advanced, individuals are able to fully utilize their cell phones or b) we would all be able to use our phones more effectively if we received more guidance.

If the second assumption were indeed true, then this would also suggest that if we were more aware of what our phones could do we would probably use them more often. With two-thirds of American adults already using cell phones in 2004 and steadily-increasing numbers, one would assume that mobile phones will take over most of our communication. Though at first glance a hopeful prospect, the possibility of making cell phone even more ubiquitous seems to be instilling fear in most American adults:

82% of all Americans and 86% of cell users report being irritated at least occasionally by loud and annoying cell users who conduct their calls in public places. Indeed, nearly one in ten cell phone owners (8%) admit they themselves have drawn criticism or irritated stares from others when they are using their cell phones in public.

If we are constantly bothered and bothering with cell phone use, would it not make more sense to alter our mobile-phone behavior? While suggesting that mobile technology will be an increasingly large part of our communications in the future if we learn how to fully optimize its use, the Pew study reported something that in my opinion is even more interesting: that if we do not receive guidance on how to behave when taking advantage of all the tools of mobile technology, or individually correct our decorum, then knowing how to use our phone won’t be of much use if a bothered bully takes it away.

Now picture a second life [I deliberately refrain from capitalizing the word “second”], a somewhat smaller one, in which our power as individuals is increased exponentially by the simple fact that it is smaller and that we hold control over our actions and creations. This is by no means a limitless world, but its boundaries are far more flexible than our real world’s. This is also not an imaginary world; it is simply a virtual one.

I had never read much about virtual reality and massive multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs), nor had I seen one before. I knew that they allowed for the creation of an alter ego, an online persona, or avatar—but I could not imagine the extent to which each player determined their actions and surroundings. According to a BusinessWeek article from May 1, 2006, Second Life, a 3-D virtual world created by Linden Labs, distinguishes itself from other virtual reality games because of an unusual intellectual property policy:

In November, 2003, Linden Lab made a policy change unprecedented in online games: It allowed Second Life residents to retain full ownership of their virtual creations. The inception of property rights in the virtual world made for a thriving market economy.

The article described the immensity of the virtual market and its implications on real-world economies. Indubitably, I found the ability to generate tangible profits from a virtual market to be a remarkable concept. Yet somehow, perhaps due to the greater impact of current events on my conscience, the possibility of virtual altruism and philanthropy struck me as Second Life’s most amazing quality.

This month, Second Life’s Showcase featured the SL Katrina Relief. Several people who held virtual fundraisers came together to recreate the areas affected by the Hurricane to call attention to [real] residents’ losses. They were able to raise $L705,807 (Linden Dollars, Second Life’s currency), which transferred to $3000 in real, tangible, funds for the American Red Cross.

Another example of virtual benefaction was publicized on New World Notes (a blog that reports current news from Second Life) Saturday, July 22nd. Second Life’s Relay for Life has been able to raise U$2,735 for the American Cancer Society so far. According to the project team’s website,

Relay gives you the power to help accelerate the Society’s advancement toward a future where cancer doesn’t take the lives of our friends and family.

Though the reality in which this philanthropic event takes place is virtual, its cause is extremely tangible. As are its donations. A “real” organization must overcome several bureaucratic hurdles before attaining its fundraising goals and gaining access to the money it collects, but it seems as though virtual efforts of collective help have only one main obstacle to overcome: transferring the funds from the virtual to the physical, credible world. This depends on the actions of few individuals, and does not necessarily require signatures or the organization of an entire mobilized mass. Is it possible that it is easier to act with altruistic intentions in a virtual world than it is in our real world?

I am not implying that Second Life is a better world than ours; I have not examined it closely enough to determine whether its flexibility leads only to positive outcomes. However, I see that in granting an avatar the agency to help a real organization of people in need, Second Life has boosted their ability to impact the world through altruism.

To avoid being called an idealist (the shame! the horror!), I will say that it is perfectly possible that the same could be true for negative actions, that aggressive actions in a virtual world will easily transfer into our own. Still, I am crossing my fingers in hope of a brighter reality (both virtual and physical), in which individuals will use ability to control their own creations to fuel their strength as individuals who can mobilize a larger group in the effort to incite positive change.

In 2004, Juan Guillermo Tornoe published an insightful post about targeting Hispanics on his blog, Hispanic Trending. He commented on an article from Newsweek about the fight for Hispanic votes, noting that most strategies relied on a neutral Spanish, which, “while speaking to everyone, speaks to no one in particular”. Tornoe suggested that those targeting Hispanics should deliver messages in a familiar tone and accent and acknowledge cultural nuances in order to reach their customers effectively. His message was straightforward and extremely perceptive: that Spanish is not always the same language, and that minute variations in diction, inflection, syntax, and pronunciation should be taken into consideration when speaking to such a diverse community.

Sadly enough, it has been two years since this blog post but the message is still extremely pertinent. Companies targeting Hispanics (and their marketing experts) fail to see the Hispanic community as a mosaic of different cultural backgrounds. They often focus only on the most superficial layer of ethnic identity when creating their marketing strategies: a common language.

Tornoe saw this as a the major pitfall in Hispanic marketing, and urged marketers to tailor their messages to the different groups that constitute the Hispanic population:

I strongly believe that due to the numerous backgrounds and levels of acculturation that exist among the Hispanic community, one has to research the market in which the advertising will be aired or published. According to that information, be it a single market or a nationwide effort, one should tailor the message according to the different characteristics of each identified market.

This advice was relevant for marketing through print ad campaigns, and is even more relevant today. With an exponential increase in Internet use, more companies are relying on the Web to disseminate messages to specific groups. Several blogs about Hispanic marketing commented on how ineffectual Hispanic marketing campaigns are; most bloggers attributed this inability to reach the target (Hispanic) audience to a failure in identifying the group.

Though in-depth research is required for marketers to understand the varying cultural traits of the several groups that constitute the Hispanic culture, it is extremely important (from an empirical standpoint) for American companies to see Hispanics as more than the “other”, or simply as a group of Spanish-speaking individuals. Once they realize who they are targeting, the messages will almost deliver themselves. With the rapidity of information dissemination through blogs, the messages will proliferate in a (hopefully) productive and expeditious manner, and, who knows, maybe reach the dimension of an effective marketing campaign.

My astonishment in people’s ability to manipulate Google rankings (as I discussed last week) and in intentionally accessing competitors’ ads repeatedly to exhaust their marketing budgets, a.k.a. “click fraud”, simply serves as a defense mechanism against the predatory nature of any market-driven environment. If no revenue could be drawn from the Web, I am almost certain that it would be a completely different place, perhaps bordering on utopian. But self-interest is ubiquitous, and people are likely to behave mischievously regardless of the possible repercussions. Though hopelessly deceived by the realities of digital wrongdoings, recent readings on the blogosphere have allowed me to regain some of my idealism vis-à-vis online communication.

Specifically, consider the following statement:

“ In a world changing as rapidly as ours is, only those who have earned and continue to earn trust will be in a position to influence the choices of third parties. Blogs can earn that most valuable commodity. Which is why you have to get started. Your competitors already have.”

Though hopeful, Hewitt’s comment is indubitably tinted by a sense of skepticism and urgency. That is to say, blogs are not emerging as the panacea for crippling self-interest. Rather, they are the vehicles through which marketing can exist as a more transparent process and not as the deceitful, occult, mechanism we have come to think of it as. By blogging, we are not ridding the market of competition. We are simply keeping up with it by directly conversing with those who will benefit from more information on whatever product we may sell, be it lipstick or gardening advice.

As a recent convert of the blogging evangelism, I would take Hewitt’s advice that “those who are not blogging should be” with caution, but take it, nonetheless. A conscientious writer, aware of the needs of readers and the limitations imposed by corporate culture, can only profit from blogging, all the while providing extensive information to those interested in whatever is being discussed.

Still, as Hewitt insightfully claims,

“Of course an idiot with a blog could destroy a company’s morale and probably invite defamation suits by the hundreds and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress suits by the scores”.

A blog is a powerful tool and should be handled with care. Authority on a subject is not automatically granted to anyone who blogs. Instead, it is gradually earned through visibility, a certain yet necessary degree of self-exposure, and a willingness to accept criticism. In an age of aggressive marketing, subjecting one’s beliefs and products to the scrutiny of the blogosphere can be more effective than many marketing strategies. What is most important, however, is that through transparency and visibility, the blogosphere holds the ability to elevate and sustain deserved reputations while sifting out ill-intentioned bloggers. All we have to do now is take advantage of this ability and ensure the continuity of blogging in its most conversational and transparent manner.

With Google’s revolutionary creation of PageRank, the appearance of websites in a search began to depend not only on its content, but also on other websites’ reliance on it. More specifically, the relevant webpage with the largest amount of inbound links will show first among all search results. Google claims that PageRank “relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page’s value.” Because the Internet is, in essence, a self-regulating and self-sustaining system, in which we rely on others’ judgments to ensure that a source is credible or reliable (with several reputation systems, from online auctions to technorati’s measures of authority), one would assume that PageRank would be the optimal ranking system for search engines. However, the digital world (like any other world) is not perfect, and its self-regulating mechanisms vulnerable to human tampering.

So anyone with a purely competitive intellect will find it in their best interest to take advantage of loopholes and find a way to manipulate a system that in a utopian world would remain intact. People have started to create fake blogs that link to their own website, boosting their “reputation” and placing them higher in search engine rankings. If one or two people were participating in this illegitimate practice, then the system would probably not suffer much from their interference. However, with 6,750 daily creations, we can only imagine these numbers increasing, and more people trying to manipulate an otherwise successful system.

Are there rules that state that fake blogs are illegal? No, probably not…So how could anyone be reprimanded for a crime that isn’t one? For now, they’ll be allowed to mess with the system. And until there is a universal moderator, the Internet will remain susceptible to people’s self-serving interests.

Eric Raymond’s essay “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” describes the development process for fetchmail while delivering dicta for the success of open source endeavors. The collaborative nature of Linux and other software led Raymond to describe it in terms of a bazaar-style creation, in which the constant improvement of already-existent software by several beta-testers with personal insights leads to higher quality products. It makes sense that 300-or-so minds think better than one, but in software development, the bazaar model allows for constant and consistent changes incited by multiple perspectives on each problem. When several creative voices converge the odds of miscommunication are greatly increased. This is where the limitations of linguistics and collaborative software (or open source) collide, making the language of software (and its project leaders) as important as the content behind it.

For project leaders, clearly conveying the principles behind the development is essential, since each user will ultimately use his or her language to add to or correct the software.
Raymond constantly reminds us that good communication skills are necessary for the success of project leaders and their endeavors:

“In order to build a development community, you need to attract people, interest them in what you’re doing and keep them happy about the amount of work they’re doing…To make the bazaar model work, it helps enormously if you have at least a little skill at charming people”.

Being able to communicate with your contributors is of great import to the success of a project. However, the language of the software itself is perhaps even more important. On a more technical level, the language of coding can make a product easy or difficult to use, which in turn determines its success among its users. While writing Fetchmail, Raymond considered making the coding language more similar to English syntax to make it easier to use. Whereas programmers had opted for using very precise and compact control syntaxes (making English, which is a highly redundant language, inefficient), now it had become more important (in Raymond’s opinion) “for a language to be convenient for humans than to be cheap for the computer”. This is not to say that coding language should be replaced by English syntax, but it does reveal a greater focus on the user.

The creation of open source software, in allowing all of its beta users to contribute to its production and improvement, represents a change in coding language, as well as a shift in attention from the technological to the everyday. Because the bazaar model is more representative of common collaborative efforts, its adoption of more simple language shows that the development of software is parallel to developments in other markets—whereas we once depended on the few people who understood the language of digital technology, we now depend on digital technology’s understanding of our language, and employing it toward the simplification of digital programming and its incorporation into everyday life.

Transparency: BBC’s article quotes Jeff Jarvis on the importance of blogs in terms of journalistic and corporate transparency. Whereas letters to editors are seldom published, comments are immediately posted, which allow for an exchange between readers and mainstream journalists.
The adoption of a transparent attitude, of which an editors’ blog is just a part, is a statement that journalism isn’t made silently behind the walls of a castle, [Jarvis] says. “It says ‘We’re going to share the process.’ And in return, people can say ‘We disagree’ or ‘We agree’, or ‘I thought that was the wrong decision but I see why you made it.’
Still, this is not to say that the blog will allow readers to interfere with the content on BBC’s webpage. Rather, they will be able to see and comment on the process. Perhaps this is a trait of all corporate blogs, but the ‘exchange’ seems to be replaced by a repeated process of “expose and reply”. Definitely an improvement, but I cannot help but say that it does not seem to live up to its pretensions of complete transparency and exchange. Jarvis makes it clear for me when he says: “We, the journalists, are still in charge.”

Objectivity: If Jarvis and other journalists consider transparency to be the web’s and blogs’ “greatest virtue”, then exposing the journalistic process would be central and sufficient to the satisfaction of the consumers of news. However, BBC’s article brings up the important concept of objectivity—of news broadcasters determining what they consider to be true as news.
People’s opinions on subjects vary according to several influential factors, such as culture, religion, and gender. If the web allowed for all of these opinions to be voiced (provided the opinions had Internet access), then the concept of objectivity would be abrogated by challenges to what was seen as “truth”. But according to Jarvis, the determination of what is true is shaken by the journalists’ personal opinions. Therefore, though they thought that the dissemination of objective news was the Internet’s greatest triumph, blogs have shown them that granting the readers the agency to decide what is true is in fact its most valuable trait.
In the case of this blog posting, commenting on the validity of blogs and on people’s objectivity is somewhat confusing and self-referential to say the least. How can we know what experiences and opinions cloud my judgment of the truth? We can’t. In my opinion, this is what makes blogs such influential publishing tools: with a few words anyone can proselytize or criticize. And in doing so, the delineations of truth and fact are distorted, becoming more flexible and susceptible to fluctuations in opinion and thought.

In Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution, Howard Rheingold discusses the psycho-sociological implications of wireless technology and its constant development. The rampant use of “keitai” (mobile phones) among Japanese youth or “kânny” among Finnish adolescents clearly conveys the ability of wireless technology to unite people in virtual communities that would otherwise not coalesce. Friendships are made and sustained over mobile phone communication; social networks are organized, mobilized, and strengthened through text-messaging. From a technological standpoint, the advancement of wireless communication is invaluable—it embodies the convergence of multiple technologies (phones, computers, etc) into one incredibly fast and powerful mechanism that defines communication today. From a socio-cultural perspective, however, why exactly is wireless technology so important and influential? I will borrow from Rheingold’s insightful explanation in my attempt define mobile phones within this contextual framework.

What is most important, in my opinion, is the redefinition of spatial boundaries (or lack thereof). While we exist in a physical space that is contained by walls and ceilings (or skies, if you’re outdoors), the mobile phone exists in a suspended spatial locus that has no concrete boundaries. According to Rheingold, Erving Goffman’s writings on social interaction are extremely applicable to the contemporary use of wireless technology. Palen, Salzman, and Youngs, in “Discovery and Integration of Mobile Communications in Everyday Life”, apply Goffman’s theories to conjecture that in using our mobile phones we exist simultaneously in two loci: “the space [we] physically occupy, and the virtual space of the conversation (the conversational space)”. If we belong to these two spaces at the same time, then we must abide by the social parameters that guide each one of them. The greater the differences between the two spaces in terms of their social parameters, the harder it becomes to assume the appropriate “public face” (Goffman’s term for a social persona) for each environment.

Instead of only occupying the insignificant inches our pockets take up, it seems as though our mobile phones are taking up two additional spaces. As we insist on relying on the wireless technologies that power our mobile phones, we continue to face the conflict between the two spaces, which can incur in others’ negative perceptions of cell phone use. Is it annoying when someone’s phone rings during a play or a movie? Definitely. Does it bother me when people stare at their phones while having a conversation with me? It’s probably better to not take this tangential argument… However, one thing can be said more objectively, regardless of my personal experience with mobile phones: belonging to two spatial loci is not an easy task. And it would certainly be better to find a middle ground (defining a separate virtual ground), although that would certainly defeat the purpose of wireless communication and its ability to permeate through every social space. Until then, please silence your cell phones.