Folksonomy and the wonderful World Wide Web (2.0)

web (web) noun
1.A complex, interconnected structure or arrangement.
2.Something intricately contrived, especially something that ensnares or entangles.
3.A membrane or fold of skin connecting the toes, as of certain amphibians.

Now Then! Amazingly I felt like writing a blog again today, as it has again been a while. I must warn you though that this one is again, about technology and will be boring to most of you. It’s also a bit of a rant about social networking sites and the internet too as they have been in the news recently, like for the last 12 years.

So of we go. I’ve been trawling round various blogs, websites, forums, newsgroups, Wikis (during either my lunch hour or at home, Sweeney, in case you’re reading this!) and just generally reading about what the hell this Web 2.0 actually is. It seems to be a bit of a buzz phrase and is quoted all over the place, probably nowhere more than in corporate boardrooms and marketing strategy meetings. And you can guarantee that only a small percentage of people actually know what it means and the other 98% are too embarrassed now to ask what it means as the phrase has been in existence since 2004 apparently!

So I thought I’d have a stab at it.

Usually when you see a version 2 next to something, especially in IT, it means an upgrade of software, hardware or technology. This is where Web 2.0 doesn’t really follow that trend as it’s still the same World Wide Web that was in existence in 1989; Web 2.0 is more about the content, personalisation and how people use it.

Incidentally, for those that don’t know the WWW, was actually started at CERN, in 1989, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (it’s French don’t ask how they came to shorten it to CERN). It started as a way for nuclear physicists to share important information on scientific research from each of their computers. Little did they know what it would evolve into! This site actually brands itself on being the most pointless site on the internet, surely that belongs to this site (In case you can’t be arsed clicking on the last link, it’s Vanessa Felz MySpace page. p.s. I think it’s a wind-up check out some of her friends. Mr.T??? )

Anyway, where was I? Yes, Web 2.0, is a trend that encourages creativity, information sharing and collaboration; exactly what the WWW was invented for, but this second wave is all about you and me posting our own content. The example that you’ll all have heard of is social networking sites, e.g. MySpace, Facebook and maybe Del.icio.us. I only started using Del.icio.us a few days ago and to be honest I’m still not convinced that it’s anything else than an online bookmark depository, enabling you to access your browser favourites from any computer. But others use it for sharing bookmarks; like I said I’m not convinced.

Now depending on your age and/or social ability you’ll either be using some or all of these sites or completely not interested. Now to tell the truth I did use Facebook while we were away as it was a good way of keeping in touch, posting photos, playing scrabble (??), but now that I’m back I’m really not interested in whether an acquaintance from 15 years ago has added the “Which Thundercat character do you most resemble” application. I did try to cut down my use and even delete everyone but my real friends, but it still got on my nerves. Some Facebook addicts in my initial “friends” list updated their status that often I used to get 4 pages of news feed when I logged into it. Some people have over 300 people in their friends, I don’t think I even know 300 people let alone be friends with them. I’ve even heard of one Facebooker who has been sacked from work as he/she was penning less than salubrious comments about their employer on their Wall (must have been someone from Dixons). There will be some people who are reading this who are lucky enough to have never used Facebook and won’t have a clue what I’m on about. You don’t know how lucky you are.

I’ve come to that conclusion that there are 3 types of these social networking whores, and I’ve categorised them below:

1. Under 25’s. This bunch are probably the biggest users and to be honest, these sites are aimed at them. They spend most of the life on the internet anyway, and haven’t really developed the social skills to hold a conversation. Most have at least one ASBO and probably know someone who is/was a member of a Welsh suicide pact. They are members of every single social networking site available and need to spend 4 hours every night, after Eastenders, Corrie and Emmerdale obviously, updating their status, photos, emotion, writing on their 300 friends walls, joining the latest “If I get 1000 members I will name my first born child Charlton Heston” group. They have very pasty skin, ginger/dyed black hair, wear hoods with everything and listen to “My Chemical Romance”. These people are a paradox. They are the most anti-social of all social networking users!

2. 25-40 Year Old’s. These people are either single and trying to cop off with the boy/girl (or both) that they fancied at school or they’re trying to find out what all their “mates” are doing, where they are living and how much they are earning. In fact, I’m surprised that Facebook haven’t added a Salary field in the personal details section for these users, as lets face it, that’s what it all boils down to at this age. People in this group are quite sociable actually, but feel a need to go on these sites as they don’t want to get left behind or feel they are missing the next technological phenomenon.

3. 40 years old (and beyond). Let’s face it, people on Facebook over 40 probably signed up by mistake and can’t work out how to delete their profile. There really is no need for people this age to be on Facebook. Usually their profile picture is one from the 1960’s when they were cool and their religious views are probably set to atheist or agnostic as they don’t want to give too much away. They only have a few friends as they can’t find anyone they know. They may have offspring listed as their friends, but only with limited access to their profile.

I read somewhere on a blog some comments people had on a relatively unknown social networking site (can’t remember the name of it). Some users were championing the fact that you could keep some professional friends (work colleagues) separate from other friends and so information you would share with your non-work friends wouldn’t be visible. An example was cited of uploading pictures from a friend’s stag-do for instance. Now, forgive me for stating the obvious, but would you really upload photos that you considered risque onto the internet. Regardless of whether you want your professional colleagues to see them or not, surely common sense would prevail and you wouldn’t do it in the first place. People are getting carried away with this whole concept of publishing everything you’ve ever done on the internet and even more irritating is they think that everyone else is interested in it. Even this blog, for instance, is a little bit “me, me,” or rather “we, we” by this I mean the 1st person plural not urine! The blog was written as much for our sakes as it was for your sakes, as a memento of what we did on our travels and how we were feeling at the time. (Admittedly you could argue that I’m as guilty as anyone for even writing this blog in the first place!)

So, I won’t be using social networking sites such as Facebook anymore. Or MySpace, Bebo, iLike, FriendsUnited, Habbo, Reunion.com, Student.com, etc. However, I will be using Flickr as a means of backing up my photos, not necessarily for sharing them, and Del.icio.us, for again storing my bookmarks online and not sharing them.

And just to wrap it up, a word on the WWW itself. I remember first “seeing” the web in 1993 in the computer lab at Surrey University. A non-professional friend of mine, (he wasn’t in anyway professional at the time although he probably is now), showed me a browser, Mosaic, to be specific, and said “Look at this page, it’s hosted on a computer in the US”. I wasn’t exactly bowled over by it, and said something along the lines of “So what, what’s the point of that, I can’t see that taking off”. I think that comment even beats the one from Surrey University’s Entertainments’ Officer saying, when asked if he wanted to book a band called Oasis in 1993, “No thanks they’re crap. No-one will pay to see them”

Adios,

p.s. Going back to the definitions at the top I think the 2nd one is the most appropriate. Once you use the WWW you’re hooked, or I know I am (and Geoff is)

p.p.s. Folksonomy is a posh word for social bookmarking apparently. You learn something new every day.

p.p.p.s. Check out the links to the social bookmarking sites on the right. Just because I’m not using these sites doesn’t mean some of our many readers aren’t!