Why I hate the term “Web 2.0.”
Moments ago I fired off a seemingly innocuous remark on Twitter saying “Ugh, can educators please stop using the term Web 2.0 tools?” However unlike most of the oddball statements I make which I don’t expect people to pay much attention to, I received a series of responses ranging from “why?” to those that may have misconstrued what I meant (or alternatively were just being sarcastic and knew full well what I meant).
Admittedly this is one of my personal hang-ups that I probably give too much power to than I should, but something about the term Web 2.0 seriously irritates me. So briefly, here’s why.
In short, it doesn’t convey any explicit meaning and yet makes a tremendous number of unspoken inferences, many of which aren’t universally agreed upon.
“Web 2.0″ really says nothing whatsoever, above and beyond being the natural next numeric step up from “Web 1.0.” The problem is, many people don’t understand the underlying idea behind “Web 1.0″ either. As bold a statement as that may be, turn to your average academic who doesn’t spend many, many hours in front of a computer every day – and you’ll start to see the implications of this.
Having said that, I understand the logic behind saying “Web 2.0″ – really, I get it. It’s a software reference that’s meant to imply a clear difference or change from a previous instantiation. Yet as with other forms of software, this by itself says nothing about what you can expect from “the upgrade.”
Furthermore, there is also no definitive connotation behind “Web 2.0″ either, which is cause for a lot of confusion. Some people use the term to refer solely to the new forms of platforms that have emerged, and the different or unique affordances that they facilitate compared to what previously existed – and the fact the common individual, without any understanding of underlying infrastructures, can engage online and establish their own space for personal expression and exploration.
Others however use “Web 2.0″ to also include the participatory, social elements – the networks, communities, grassroots movements, etcetera – that have begun to flourish in the wake of the software innovations. So to them, Web 2.0 includes both CULTURE and SOFTWARE.
As with most aspects of communication, the language we use to describe the world around us, our perceptions towards it, the manner in which it affects us and our relationships, and the ways we engage within it is all very important. We need to be prepared to say what we mean, and ensure it actually carries a meaning that will be clear to others. If our language isn’t doing that, then what purpose does it serve?
This is a case where blogs trump twitter. Your post portrays your meaning much more eloquently and more precisely than your earlier tweet, which I personally thought came across rather arrogantly, reading it on behalf of the new users and technophobes I work around — and taking it rather personally after having just minutes before tweeted about Web 2.0 this-or-that. I was the one who shot back, “Why?” and received no response from you (but thank you for this blog post).
Having read your explanation here, I do understand what you mean and agree that the true meaning of the concept “Web 2.0″ is far too big and wide to be clearly and universally understood; it far surpasses its flimsy label that is so carelessly tossed about as a catch-all phrase.
As we know too well from the world of policy and its clinging burrs of buzzwords, language is often worn like fashion, and Web 2.0 is the style of the day, quickly fading now among the early trendsetters.
I think that’s why I bristled at your tweet — I perceived it as arrogance because I thought you were implying that the concept or phrase was old-fashioned, out of style, last-year’s model… but I guarantee there are huge numbers of educators who still are uncomfortable with even Web 1.0 and need to understand the difference before we ever dump the labels or move on. Believe it or not, when I explain the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 to a group of non-techie teachers, they GET it, because of the language. Web 1.0 – they can only read and look; Web 2.0 – they can participate. Wow! And they’re excited about the progress! What better motivation for embracing and exploring newer technology than that?
I was told once to “stop acting so high and mighty about your tech-i-ness” (actual words). I decided to stop thinking that the rest of the world thinks like I do; I can tweet and learn and explore, but I can also practice tolerance and patience while everyone catches up — or while they go by on another path. And by the way, lots of people know more than I do about many other things!
Here’s a post I wrote about intellectual bullying a while back:
http://edutwist.com/elin/?p=1115
P.S. I don’t think you’re bullying, by the way. I see where you’re coming from. You want accurate language, not careless language — I get that. But since it’s still around, let’s be sure to explain Web 2.0 and not just throw the nomenclature out with the bathwater.
@Sharon Elin: Thanks so much for your comment. Your points highlight exactly why I wrote this post in the first place. As soon as I started getting @ replies on Twitter I thought to myself: “Oh dear, Mike you need to explain yourself.”
I also freely admit that my hang-up here is silly and I’m taking myself a bit too seriously – as soon as you start arguing about terminology and semantics you know you’ve passed a threshold of some kind LOL
On the other hand, part of my thinking on this dates back to my experiences with tech support. I come from a technical support background and over time I’ve come to recognise and appreciate the importance of being aware of the perspectives of the users – especially the new ones. There is an enormous amount of diversity in technical terminology that most people just can’t keep up with – so I think we need to be mindful of how we go about describing very complex and/or abstract technical ideas – especially when they incorporate so many different facets (cultural, technical, educational, identity, etcetera).
Generally speaking it’s why I personally try to use plain English in explanations rather than tech-speak or edu-speak – I think people find it much less threatening to explore new ideas when they’re couched in a familiar language.
The other concern/gripe I have about the “Web 2.0″ phrase is that it doesn’t sufficiently articulate the importance of the cultural element in the social software / social media landscape. Increasingly I’m seeing people talk about incorporating tools like blogs and wikis into the classroom, and yet too frequently they place them within the old paradigm where classroom social structures / hierarchies are formal and rigid and students aren’t afforded much flexibility or freedom in how they use, personalise or customise the tools – and are essentially unable to make them their own or begin to express or explore their own digital identities.
To me when I talk about Web 2.0, these notions of participatory culture and identity are core and fundamental and really can’t or shouldn’t be separate from the discussion – hence why I tend to spell it out much more explicitly.
Nonetheless though you’re points are quite important too – new users are inevitably not hung-up on terminology or semantics. They just want to explore the landscape that people are increasingly talking about. So I think nurturing and encouraging this passion is really important. As exposure continues I think it’s inevitable (or at least I hope it is) that people will start to develop a more holistic grasp of the sociological implications of social software. Perhaps that’s where people like you and I come in – help introduce these concepts along the way so people are thinking bigger than the technology.
Anyway thanks again for your comments. I hope this has smoothed things over a bit!
Cheers,
Mike
Thank you for the post, the comment and response to comment. I am one of those newbies, not just to the technology but to using it in education. As a writer and teacher, my emphasis has always been “how can I build community?” No matter what we call it, these developments are extremely exciting. But before we call it anything, we should think carefully about our audience. Thank you for articulating this so eloquently!
Leave your response!
Additional comments powered by BackType
Subscription Options
Recent Posts
Archives
Recent Comments
Categories
Recent Tweets
Me @ Other Sites
Tags
Most Commented
Meta
Shared under CC-BY
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Support Open Education