Blog Insights: Web 3.0 definitions debated and disputed

by Dan Blacharski

October 9, 2007 —

What bloggers are saying about the latest in information technology

There's been a considerable buzz this week in response to a blog entry by Jason Calcanis, founder of the human-powered search engine Mahalo. At a time when most of us are still trying to figure out Web 2.0, he has put out an "official" (quote marks his) definition of Web 3.0, calling it "the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform." Clearly, Jason is engaging in a bit of wishful thinking, but if the Web were indeed to evolve into that vessel of high-quality content, we would all be better off for it. In the current state of affairs, regrettably, the high quality content is dwarfed by dreck, and the voices of gifted individuals are drowned out by the voices of others far less eloquent.

Jason was roundly flamed by bloggers everywhere who, as is stated in the WebProNews blog, had "the audacity to call it the 'official' definition." I think it was more playfulness than audacity, and I'm pretty confident that Jason was being a bit tongue-in-cheek in calling it "official." And, much of the blogosphere spent a lot of unnecessary energy debating whether or not Jason's definition should stand, or whether his definition would be better pegged at describing "Web 2.5" or "Web 2.1" or some other decimal point. Again, a debate that misses the point entirely. The issue of quality is an integral part of the Web, regardless of version or decimal point, and whether the level of quality will go up or down should be of concern to everyone.

The nature of Web 2.0, as noted in the BlueBlog, is towards systems like YouTube and Wikipedia, which are self-organizing and uncontrolled for the most part by any central authority. This system of decentralization, in which anybody who wishes to participate may have a voice, has its fans, many of whom decry the traditional model of editorial oversight, paid professional staff writers and old-fashioned hierarchy, in which only those who meet the publisher's expectations may have a voice.

Without a doubt, giving everybody a voice has its place, but we must not equate popularity and the availability of a platform with quality and accuracy, and we must not equate editorial oversight and a desire for excellence as elitism. If you want to watch a video of somebody's pet doing amusing tricks, YouTube is a great place to go. But if you want to see insightful information about an issue of historical importance, you would be better off at the PBS web site. So too with Wikipedia --for basic definitions or information about popular culture, Wikipedia may be the place to go, but if you're writing an academic paper, your professors will send you back to the drawing board if you use it as a reference.

Nick Carr takes on Jason's definition and compares new media with old media, cynically pointing out that "new media is just old media with a different cost structure." Nick's entry is followed by a vibrant discussion in which Jason himself responds, making another insightful point -- that being, he is looking for "balance" in the Web of the future, where the "wisdom of the crowds" is taken along with respect for individual excellence. This is a desirable goal, and the Web of the present is in a state of imbalance in this regard.

ITworld.com