Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
0
September 26th, 2010
Web 2.0’s value as a marketing term now far exceeds its value as a technical term.
Anything Web 2.0 must be more techie, more interactive, and have more onlinier
goodness than before, and therefore, just be better. “Web 2.0″ is a straight shot in
to the brain, don’t worry about the subtle details of what it actually means.
What a handy shortcut …and a trap. I’ve posted before about the danger of adopting m
arketing terms as meaningful language. Marketing terms work because they are emo
tional shortcuts. Marketeers love these words because they can say more in less
time, allowing the consumer to fill in the pesky details of whatever is being so
ld with what they were hoping to hear.
Web 2.0 logos in space
Look closely, can you see the learning? (Graphic attribution: ocean.flynn)
For educators, this is a cautionary tale about being swept up by what marketeers
call an “empty vessel” – a term that evokes strong associations but actually is meani
ngless. (Think shampoo descriptions like “citreshine”, “silkessence”, etc. – made up words
meant that evoke cleanliness, fullness, and the happy feeling of lush, shiny ha
ir, but without any actual science behind it.)
You may have heard that Web 2.0 is “all about” interactivity, ease-of-use, democrati
zing publishing, collaboration, communication, connectivity, users vs. bosses, n
ew business models vs. old, two-way vs. one-way, personalization, micro-function
ality, customization, online apps, the new architecture of society, networking,
a platform, innovation, long tails, style, transparency, participation, generati
ve, folksonomy vs. directories, the wisdom of crowds, clouds, self-sorting, find
ing vs. searching, syndication vs. stickiness, services, an attitude, a network
that learns, emergent, in perpetual beta, the collective intelligence, engagemen
t, … should I go on?
All of these are true, and at the same time, none of them are the true single le
ns to see what Web 2.0 is. Something this malleable, this variable, this diverge
nt, can’t also be meaningful in any one single sense.
And because Web 2.0 has become essentially meaningless, what it means for learni
ng is not known without more details. Talking about Web 2.0 tools and learning i
s meaningless as well – until you explain what the tools are, what they are used
for, and what the students do with them. It’s just not good enough to talk about h
ow the Luddites don’t get it. Simply using the term “Web 2.0 tools” deliberately obscu
res the facts — no wonder people don’t get it.
Can this be undone? Can we nag people into proper usage? No, I don’t think so — it’s a
done deal. Web 2.0 has reached escape velocity into the orbit of common use, on
e more empty vessel pretending to have meaning where there is none. It’s too easy,
too convenient a shortcut to express the current new new thing. There is no way
to wrangle it back down to earthly reality. These terms are typically short-liv
ed, though, as the next new new thing will surely take its place.
Web 3.0 anyone?
Sylvia
Related posts:
* Web 2.0 and historical perspectives
* That’s hot – Web 2.0 and the empty vessel
* Words are just words