abt. quotedKlassenarbeit
People Power – Text von Chris Anderson im aktuellen Wired.
Each era was fueled by a faster, cheaper, and more widely available method of production that kicked efficiency to the next level and transformed the world. Now we have armies of amateurs, happy to work for free.
…
This is perhaps the most dramatic manifestation of the second-generation Web. The tools of production, from blogging to video-sharing, are fully democratized, and the engine for growth is the spare cycles, talent, and capacity of regular folks, who are, in aggregate, creating a distributed labor force of unprecedented scale.
…
Previous industrial ages were built on the backs of individuals, too, but in those days labor was just that: labor. Workers were paid for their time, whether on a factory floor or in a cubicle. Today’s peer-production machine runs in a mostly nonmonetary economy. The currency is reputation, expression, karma, “wuffie,” or simply whim.
(man muss dann wohl Amerikaner sein, um daraus einen Antikapitalismus ableiten zu können, eine Unterstellung, die er dann zurückweist)
Level 3
The application could ONLY exist on the net, and draws its essential power from the network and the connections it makes possible between people or applications. These are applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. EBay, craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype, (and yes, Dodgeball) meet this test. They are fundamentally driven by shared online activity. The web itself has this character, which Google and other search engines have then leveraged. (You can search on the desktop, but without link activity, many of the techniques that make web search work so well are not available to you.) And search applications like Adsense for Content clearly have Web 2.0 at their heart… In the hierarchy of web 2.0 applications, the highest level is to embrace the network, to understand what creates network effects, and then to harness them in everything you do.
see Levels of the Game: The Hierarchy of Web 2.0 Applications
Level 2
The application could exist offline, but it is uniquely advantaged by being online. Flickr is a great example. You can have a local photo management application (like iPhoto) but the application gains remarkable power by leveraging an online community. In fact, the shared photo database, the online community, and the artifacts it creates (like the tag database) is central to what distinguishes Flickr from its offline counterparts.
see Level 3
Level 1
The application can and does exist successfully offline, but it gains additional features by being online. Writely is a great example. If you want to do collaborative editing, its online component is terrific, but if you want to write alone…, it gives you little benefit (other than availability from computers other than your own.)
see Level 2
Der Schlüssel zu 2.0
The Web is the fabric upon which an ever increasing amount of our lives is woven into. This is now most media including newspapers, TV, radio, entertainment, music, arts, etc. as well as what I call lifestyle logistics; e-mailing, IMs, calendaring, travel planning, time/task management, and more. They are all moving or have already moved to the Web. This very habit most of us have of being on the Web so much of the time, along with the easy lure of the hyperlink, which can redirect anyone via any of these ‘channels’ into a new Web 2.0 experience or site. Thus, if someone loves your new site, they send their friends the link, they send their friends, and so on. Instant pile-on involving tens or hundreds of thousands of users overnight are now common. And good viral feedback loops keep them there and keep them coming back, and bringing their friends with them.
Of course, in a few years the exact design patterns for triggering a new MySpace, Facebook, or similar social juggernaut will become common. Then most likely balance will be reachieved in the industry and there will be less disruption. But for now the secret balance of Web 2.0 techniques that powers growth through efficient access to network effects is still an art. The bottom line: the upside and downside potential of Web 2.0 is truly significant. And it means that in most industries doing nothing is really no longer an option.
Web 2.0’s Real Secret Sauce: Network Effects (wie immer mit grandiosem Diagramm)
Poststrategische Interventionen
Today, the average corporation is packed to the gills with strategists. It’s up to it’s ears in strategy consultants. The language, vocabulary, and ideas of strategic thinking permeate it.
…
In a world where strategy is a commodity, creativity becomes the vital factor from which value flows. When everyone can think strategically about everything, the locus of value creation shifts from out-thinking everyone to out-creating them. The prime mover of value creation becomes putting the ability to create (goods, services, processes – even strategies) at the heart and soul of the firm.
Umair Haque in Laws of the Post-Network Economy: Strategy is a Commodity
Music Industry
Another Example Of How The Music Industry Can Respond To File Sharing
In other words, it adds additional value to make buying the physical CD worthwhile that can’t be copied by any download. Obviously, not every musician should do the same thing, but the point is simply that creative artists will always figure out ways to sell something that people want to buy, rather than trying to treat all their fans like criminals. For some musicians it may be this booklet and lens, for others it may be travel services to see the band in concert, for others it could be “access” to the band. The point is simply that there are plenty of business models out there for the industry to choose from.
Masse und Macht 2
Gerade im Gespräch mit Tim ist mir wieder einmal deutlicher geworden, das es 2 Utopien gibt, die in Verbindung mit dem Versprechen, das den Internettechnologien innewohnt, zu einem gesellschaftlichen Fortschritt führen könnten: Gerechtere Verteilung von Macht und rationalerer politischer Diskurs. Tim Bonnemann sucht nach Ideen, die den politischen Diskurs mittels Web 2.0 Technologien von den alten säugetierischen Prozessen, die jeder der je mehr als 3 Menschen auf einem Haufen erlebt hat, wegführen können.
Siggi Becker zum n-ten Webmontag in Köln
ReQuoting pt. 2
What this all points to, for me, is a notion that I find more convincing with every passing day: the Web per se, with all its paraphernalia of sites and domains and banner ads and whatnot, was in many ways a crutch, an artifical simplification and a ten-year detour. The sense I came home from Amsterdam with was that we’ll all be getting used to a more kustom kar interface to the information we find most meaningful: flagrant, weird, complicated, idiosyncratic and personal.
#2233435
wären die dazugehörigen diskussionen nicht immer noch blöder, man müßte fast sagen, es wird immer noch blöder.
(#2233435)
ReQuoting pt. 1
“For the older academics, identity is protected through restricting access to it; by using the language of privacy and confidentiality to talk about it” … identity is somethin “within”. while, in my paraphrasing words, for the web-generation (even including old me when i’m in the web), identity is nothing to be “protected” and feared to “get lost”, but more like something felt to be won through externalizing and distributing a digital self all over the web.
Pre-emptive Strike
Boing Boing erhält ein vorauseilendes nastygram ob der WM, Antwort:
Oh brother. I don’t even know what the FIFA World Cup is. I’m guessing it’s soccer, which I hate just as much as any other pro sport. Every editor at Boing Boing detests professional sports, and we would sooner stream a video of a crumpled up paper napkin in the corner of a room than show some jackasses running after a ball. The only time we would ever post anything about pro-sports would be to make fun of them.
Baker & McKenzie, be on alert: henceforth, Boing Boing will be actively monitoring your website to identify dumbass activity and will, if necessary, take appropriate action to point out instances of wasting clients’ money by sending out unnecessary and obnoxious warning letters.
Trends
infinite entertainment! For the easily entertained.
chris langreiter zu den Google Trends
Dr. Who
I won’t link (or say anything nice) to any Windows Live service that doesn’t support Firefox.
Attention Suckers
Alle mir bekannten Web 2.0 Anwendungen, Blogs oder sonstigen Internetschrebergärten versuchen nicht das Aufmerksamkeitsproblem zu lösen, sondern für sich zu entscheiden. Was ein riesiger Unterschied ist und die weitere Entwicklung des Gebrauchswertes des Netzes sehr behindert.
Hundefutter
dogfood’s Gedanken zum Web 3.0 Artikel von Zeldman:
Die Diskussion um Web 2.0 bewirkt anscheinend bei den Diskutanten vorallem eines: Stellung nehmen, entweder für die schwarze oder für die weiße Seite. Und dabei immer brav Teilbereiche von Web 2.0 ausblenden. Je nach Position das wirtschaftliche Umfeld das Web 2.0 als Hypemaschine benützt, oder der Paradigmenwechsel in der Webbenutzung und – Entwicklung der das was mit der Blogosphäre begonnen hat, fortsetzt.
Einige benutzen bewusst eine Karikatur von sich selbst, um die Diskussion anzuheizen und um wider den Stachen zu löcken. Legitim.
Andere wiederum merken gar nicht wie sie zu Karikatur geworden sind und nur noch Cheerleader spielen. Bei denen bin ich gespannt, wie ihre Glaubwürdigkeit die Hype-Halbwertzeit von 2-3 Jahren überleben wird.
Das darf auf US-Verhältnisse bezogen werden, wo Tim O’Reilly, nicht zuletzt dank erfolgreicher Eroberung der Definitionshoheit über den Begriff “Web 2.0” häufig und gerne an vorderster Front ist. Endlich ein Hype, bei dem er auch mal mitspielen und ein bißchen vom Rahm abschöpfen darf.
Ich schätze dogfood sehr, der kennt sich auch aus, aber deshalb wundere ich mich doch sehr über den Film, der in einigen Köpfen abläuft, wenn sie den Terminus Web 2.0 hören. Anscheinend gibt es da irgendeinen Paralleldiskurs der sich irgendwo unter meinem Radar abspielt. (Und da ist dann auch nicht gerade hilfreich, wenn von den Visionären oder Evangelisten (üblicherweise Don Alphonso) oder eben hier von Diskutanten, Provokateuren, Karikaturen, etc. gesprochen wird, ohne die zu nennen oder zu verlinken; und Tim O’Reilly? Seit sicher einem Jahrzehnt eher an der Vorfront von vielem was sich im Web und open source Bereich tut, der sich im ganzen Web 2.0 Gebilde fast kaum zu Worte meldet, gerade hin und wieder ob seiner Meme-Map und Konferenz zitiert wird, darf endlich einmal abschöpfen??)
schnell vs. beschleunigend
Ich hab das zwar überhaupt nicht verstanden, aber vermute darin eine echte Einsicht: Zur Differenz von ‘Schnell’ und ‘Beschleunigend’ von Siggi Becker
Eine Nachricht die schnell sein will, kann oder muss, stabilisiert einen Status Quo
Im Wettlauf um die Schnelligkeit, vulgo Aktualität, zählt die Diffusionsfähigkeit der Nachricht oder Information
Schnelle Nachrichten oder Informationen müssen das Pathos der endlichen Spiele (siehe JP Carse) perpetuieren
Beschleunigende Nachrichten oder Informationen etablieren ein neues Niveau, sind somit grundsätzlich
Die grundsätzliche Natur beschleunigender Nachrichten oder Informationen impliziert ihre Schwerverdaulichkeit
…
zur Erinnerung an die Google-in-China-Zensur-Debatte: Ross Mayfield’s The Great Wall of Google
But this is the network age, where even the physics of information are different. I’ve had a chance to meet blog service providers and gain an understanding of the operational model of censorship. Most critically, users transcend the filter, creating their own language to gain freedom of speech. Which raises a very interesting scenario: Google.cn is launched, users as publishers and searchers optimize search for freedom, the filter is calibrated, users calibrate, rinse, lather and repeat.
Klassifikation
Irgendwie willkürliche Einteilung von user created content in eigennützig, sozial und selbstlos, aber die abgeleiteten Implikationen für das selbstsüchtige Modell untertützende Anwendungen sind nicht uninteressant:
Selfish UCC. Delicious bookmarks and Flickr photos. I primarily bookmark and take pictures for myself — because I want to remember, or because I like something. I use these web-based apps instead of client-side equivalents because I personally get more value out of them. While the social benefit is apparent, I view that social benefit strictly through a selfish lens
womit verbunden ist:
the issue is relevance and commensurability. If I take notes on something for my own purposes, there’s no reason for me to care whether it accords with anyone else’s notation in any sort of commensurable way. Delicious tries to address this problem by suggesting tags that other people used on an item; this drives convergence on certain terms, making their programmatic understanding of what that item is more robust.
und also:
For selfish UCC, take note of Delicious’ example and try to drive general relevance without interrupting the selfishness of your users. Delicious prompts me with terms others have used, making my selfish life easier while making relevance of my actions more general.
Und so weiter Taggen
Noch ein schöner Text zum Taggen (bzw. das Beste das mir seit langem zum Thema über den Weg gelaufen ist): A social analysis of tagging
I come across an article I want to remember. I tag it. That moment, I go from wandering the web alone to joining a group of others. This transition is important. In a moment, I am transported to a crowd of people with whom I have at least one thing in common. And best of all, I can enjoy their presence, but I don’t need to converse. After being on many mailing lists for many years, let me say, conversation is often overrated. Often, I like to be in the company of others, without needing to follow threads and participate. It is the same reason that I like working in a cafe – enjoying the presence of others without the burden of active interaction. Similarly, tags provide a companionable social hum that I enjoy.
…An important characteristic of tagging systems is that they lead to ad-hoc group creation, lowering the barriers to finding like-minded others, enabling social discovery and connections.
The basic social formations supported by tagging are more like crowds than true groups. I see the milling crowds and have some idea about what they are doing (reading, watching), but I don’t know these people – they are not part of my network or members of my mailing lists and online communities I subscribe to. These are ad-hoc groups brought together by a particular tag or resource.
… Like all good social structures, tagging is malleable – it takes the form best supported by the content, rather than impose a rigid structure on the content. On Flickr, can lead to ad-hoc collaboration, collection self-expression that is very different than the type of tagging frenzy we witness for popular articles on del.icio.us. As tagging spreads we are likely to see other types of emergent ad-hoc collaboration.
… tagging captures our individual conceptual associations, but does not force us to categorize. It enables loose coordination, but does not enforce the same interpretation of a concept. We could all tag items as “art” but mean very different things. That would create chaos in a shared folder scheme, but works well in a social tagging system.
usw.
Auch lesenswert: The Good, The Bad & The Taggy