somewhatfrank.com— The video titled, "Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us" was created by Michael Wesch, an Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Kansas State University.
Feb 3, 2007View in Crawl 4
@g3r4Well, just the fact that no one can understand what the hell it means, and also that it uses existing technologies, shows that this is ridiculous. User experiences vary infinitely. If your talking about user interface, this alleged Web 2.0 does not help. Social interaction? It can all be boiled down to IRC and BBSs. If you want pretty graphics, long load times and even more clogging of the pipes, the head over to MySpace.That was not a definition. It still seems like Web 2.0 still doesn't have one. And "ifWeb, maybe"? That proves it. No one knows. No one's fooling anyone. There is no Web 2.0.
I'm not exactly what you'd call a huge fan of the term web 2.0 or many of the idioms that seem to along with it. This video was very well done though and it does communicate what is generally meant when people say "Web 2.0". I dugg it becasue I wanted to give an educator recognition for going the extra mile and creating some really nice educational multimedia.
Excellent video. But. You can't focus on the content and ignore the technology. It's the same technologies. This was more an explanation of what XML can do. The approach, thought process and concept are all valid and intruguing but this isn't "Web 2.0". From someone that works with this technology every day (I mean administrating web server farms, planning infrastructure, etc.) Web 2.0 is an IPv6 based provider, carrying an immergence of our best technologies to deliver the content they're talking about. They've defined the content but 'Web 2.0' cannot be complete without defining and utilizing the future of technology as well. The vision is short sighted and highly incomplete. Web 2.0 is a revolution that will span both our social and technological advance and understanding. When those consortiums that define accepted standards in hardware, software and design propose a new model called Web 2.0 then you can use that term. But that's not what this is.
Cool.You get just another(better?) point of view of web (2.0).You see that web2.0 isn't good or bad.It's just so different from what we had before it.Web is linking people...
@rhinopigagreed, it doesn't really explain web2.0 at all. it starts off in a good direction, but only names xml as responsible for differentiation between form and content, which is just plain inaccurate. xml has no formatting, css is what allows format to be separate from (x)html (that and dom-oriented styling js). then he says that this differentiation between content and style is what allows sites like blogger and flickr to give voice to the average user, which is again completely inaccurate, it's strong server-side programming architectures that allow this effect. sites like blogger and flickr tend to do a mediocre job of separating content from styling to ensure backwards compatibility and such. what he says about xml allowing data exchange to be faster and more efficient is true, but then he talks about databases, which are the opposite of xml, as if they are the same thing.This guy had all the right ideas, but in the end delivered a pretty incorehent presentation. He started off doing a good job guiding the reader, illustrating the difference between xml and html, but then started zooming around to other un-relating topics, throwing out fallicies, leaving the audience in the dust about the logic behind his conclusions. and suddenly throwing out issues of privacy, copyright, and net neutrality without actually addressing them.Of course I still dug because the video was presented in a very interesting way and shows potential for a new medium for computer-educational videos. He also attempts to address some issues that I care about, and for this he gets all the credit in the world. However, the video should be revised to explain more thoroughly the jumps he makes between ideas. In it's current form, people who are not familiar with the issues will not be able to follow it (and thus their notion of the internet simply being too confusing for them will be reinforced), and the only people who CAN fully understand it are those who ARE familiar with the issues, but they will notice all of the blatant fallacies.good idea, bad execution. i'd love to see more attempts to educate the public on the buzz words of the internet, though.
Thank you for the useful information افلام, توبيكات ,منتديات ,دردشه , برامج , فساتين ,اناشيد اطفال ,دليل مواقع, مسلسل الاجنحه المنكسره ,مسجات
acidphysxFeb 4, 2007
@g3r4Well, just the fact that no one can understand what the hell it means, and also that it uses existing technologies, shows that this is ridiculous. User experiences vary infinitely. If your talking about user interface, this alleged Web 2.0 does not help. Social interaction? It can all be boiled down to IRC and BBSs. If you want pretty graphics, long load times and even more clogging of the pipes, the head over to MySpace.That was not a definition. It still seems like Web 2.0 still doesn't have one. And "ifWeb, maybe"? That proves it. No one knows. No one's fooling anyone. There is no Web 2.0.
hello2usirFeb 4, 2007
I need to thank and high-five whoever made that site.
adrianc333Feb 4, 2007
Quite a good video.Outlines the points really clear.Dugg.Also, anyone else like the way it was all cut together? :)
thrackleFeb 4, 2007
I'm not exactly what you'd call a huge fan of the term web 2.0 or many of the idioms that seem to along with it. This video was very well done though and it does communicate what is generally meant when people say "Web 2.0". I dugg it becasue I wanted to give an educator recognition for going the extra mile and creating some really nice educational multimedia.
meshmanFeb 4, 2007
Excellent video. But. You can't focus on the content and ignore the technology. It's the same technologies. This was more an explanation of what XML can do. The approach, thought process and concept are all valid and intruguing but this isn't "Web 2.0". From someone that works with this technology every day (I mean administrating web server farms, planning infrastructure, etc.) Web 2.0 is an IPv6 based provider, carrying an immergence of our best technologies to deliver the content they're talking about. They've defined the content but 'Web 2.0' cannot be complete without defining and utilizing the future of technology as well. The vision is short sighted and highly incomplete. Web 2.0 is a revolution that will span both our social and technological advance and understanding. When those consortiums that define accepted standards in hardware, software and design propose a new model called Web 2.0 then you can use that term. But that's not what this is.
anselmthecrackFeb 4, 2007
Cool.You get just another(better?) point of view of web (2.0).You see that web2.0 isn't good or bad.It's just so different from what we had before it.Web is linking people...
gameguy43Feb 4, 2007
@rhinopigagreed, it doesn't really explain web2.0 at all. it starts off in a good direction, but only names xml as responsible for differentiation between form and content, which is just plain inaccurate. xml has no formatting, css is what allows format to be separate from (x)html (that and dom-oriented styling js). then he says that this differentiation between content and style is what allows sites like blogger and flickr to give voice to the average user, which is again completely inaccurate, it's strong server-side programming architectures that allow this effect. sites like blogger and flickr tend to do a mediocre job of separating content from styling to ensure backwards compatibility and such. what he says about xml allowing data exchange to be faster and more efficient is true, but then he talks about databases, which are the opposite of xml, as if they are the same thing.This guy had all the right ideas, but in the end delivered a pretty incorehent presentation. He started off doing a good job guiding the reader, illustrating the difference between xml and html, but then started zooming around to other un-relating topics, throwing out fallicies, leaving the audience in the dust about the logic behind his conclusions. and suddenly throwing out issues of privacy, copyright, and net neutrality without actually addressing them.Of course I still dug because the video was presented in a very interesting way and shows potential for a new medium for computer-educational videos. He also attempts to address some issues that I care about, and for this he gets all the credit in the world. However, the video should be revised to explain more thoroughly the jumps he makes between ideas. In it's current form, people who are not familiar with the issues will not be able to follow it (and thus their notion of the internet simply being too confusing for them will be reinforced), and the only people who CAN fully understand it are those who ARE familiar with the issues, but they will notice all of the blatant fallacies.good idea, bad execution. i'd love to see more attempts to educate the public on the buzz words of the internet, though.
web2wizMar 2, 2008
informative. insightful. ingenious.thanks.
soso33Nov 17, 2008
Thank you for the useful information افلام, توبيكات ,منتديات ,دردشه , برامج , فساتين ,اناشيد اطفال ,دليل مواقع, مسلسل الاجنحه المنكسره ,مسجات
smithjeffJul 30, 2009
Love the video. A creative way to explain something to those who do not have web/tech knowledge.