Web 2.0

Hello. My name is Carolyn, and I’m an addict. I have three blogs, dating back to 2002. I had a website
in 1996. I’m on Facebook, MySpace, eBay, Flickr, LinkedIn, Catster and Friendster. I have six email addresses,
although I really only ever use Gmail anymore for real email. I have AIM, MSN, Trillian and GTalk on
my computer at home. I’m a member of around ten newsgroups, I Freecycle and Fark. I also
play World of Warcraft, a Massively Multi-Player Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG). And that’s
only the list of the services I log into and use regularly. The list of communities I’ve joined and deserted is
impossibly long.

I used to assume this was an addiction limited to dorks like me, but my experience with MySpace has
changed that opinion. The moment I linked my account to my High School (ERHS, class of 1998 in case
you’re wondering) I had countless friend requests from people I graduated with that I hadn’t spoken to for
years. Virtually everyone from my High School was there, and it got me thinking about this Web 2.0 thing.

I’m not a big fan of the term “Web 2.0”. I don’t think that it does the history and evolution of the Internet
justice to squeeze it into the same terms as release-driven software. The current trend in sharing and
communicating has been building since the days of Bulletin Board Systems (holler if you played LORD)
and later ICQ chat groups. At first glance, it looks like the only thing that has changed since then is the
technology that people are using. That’s a common theme surrounding the Web 2.0 buzz - to focus on the
technologies that make the current evolution possible, and give them the credit for making it a growing
trend.

I submit for consideration a different view. I’ve been blabbing my opinions on the internet since I was in
Middle School. While the outlets for yakking online are prettier now with more graphics and stuff – they’re
still basically the same. I say something, people either listen or don’t, respond or don’t and so forth. We had
this back when I was a kid and I’ve seen it grow in intensity and scope as I’ve grown in years.

So why the need for a name all of a sudden? It’s no coincidence that the term Web 2.0 was born when my
generation entered the workforce. Web 2.0 has been growing under our noses for years. It’s only recently,
now that the power of this movement has become too big to ignore, that the world has given it a name.
The people who grew up with the idea of being able to communicate with anyone are adults now, and
the culture of communication has changed with their broadened experience. Unfortunately, the name and
discussion about Web 2.0 tries to pin it down and explain it with technology instead of sociology.

The truth is - this Soylent Green is people, folks. Web 2.0 or whatever you want to call it isn’t based on a
specific technology and it isn’t a new and improved version of the Internet. It isn’t Facebook, MySpace, LiveJournal,
Flickr or any of the numerous communication outlets that have popped up since 2000. It’s a basic need,
a demand, for evolution in communication that is consuming members of the most recent generations of
adults.  This hunger for global, complete and remote communication is not only igniting innovation in technology,
but its also driving cultural evolution, changing global standards - and ultimately changing the world.

So, you can continue to call it Web 2.0 if you want - I guess everything needs a name. But when you define
that term, please don’t think of technologies. They are only symptoms of this virus of communication
that is sweeping over us. When you think of what Web 2.0 is, think of a global community of connected
resources - talking, sharing and learning from each other, making the world a smaller place.