Comments on: Web 2.0 Makes Me Cringe http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/03/19/web-2-0-makes-me-cringe/ just a lowly edtech geek, mumble mumble university of calgary Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:18:07 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Abject Learning http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/03/19/web-2-0-makes-me-cringe/#comment-81593 Abject Learning Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-81593 <strong>Whatever you call it, it's yummy</strong> I tend to agree with D'Arcy, and exhibit a similar gag-reflex when someone drops the term "Web 2.0" on me. But as Darren points out in the ensuing comments, it can be hard to resist when you are trying to conceptualise a broad range of applications,... Whatever you call it, it’s yummy

I tend to agree with D’Arcy, and exhibit a similar gag-reflex when someone drops the term “Web 2.0″ on me. But as Darren points out in the ensuing comments, it can be hard to resist when you are trying to conceptualise a broad range of applications,…

]]> By: Gardner http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/03/19/web-2-0-makes-me-cringe/#comment-81594 Gardner Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-81594 A contrary view, of sorts, given the renewed flurry of interest in the wake of Bryan Alexander's new essay. I think of Web 2.0 more as a not-that marker. As in, not Blackboard. Not static web pages. Not reproducing on the Web exactly what we've already had, and in some cases had better, in print culture. Etc. For me, Web 2.0 means things that "get" the web as something more than online handouts the students can print out and bring to class. I think "Web 2.0" is a standard. A standard of imagination, of writeability, of an environment that allows freetagging, links, impulse authoring, reorganization, rip/mix/feed, etc. Blackboard is not Web 2.0 compliant because it is fundamentally about using the web to automate and administer the activities that were already going on in print culture. It's a faster bicycle, not a car, and not an airplane. It is fundamentally unimaginative, and its business plan seems to be to appeal to administrators who want a more automated process of doing Business As Usual. With "Caliper," the assessment module that's their Fourth Leg (after the "Learning System," the "Portal," and the "Content Management"/E-Portfolio legs), they will have Business As Usual all sewn up in a Web 1.0 read-this-but-don't-write-back bag. No rip mix feed need apply. Web 2.0 means "enough already." At least, that's what it means to me. A contrary view, of sorts, given the renewed flurry of interest in the wake of Bryan Alexander’s new essay.

I think of Web 2.0 more as a not-that marker. As in, not Blackboard. Not static web pages. Not reproducing on the Web exactly what we’ve already had, and in some cases had better, in print culture. Etc. For me, Web 2.0 means things that “get” the web as something more than online handouts the students can print out and bring to class.

I think “Web 2.0″ is a standard. A standard of imagination, of writeability, of an environment that allows freetagging, links, impulse authoring, reorganization, rip/mix/feed, etc. Blackboard is not Web 2.0 compliant because it is fundamentally about using the web to automate and administer the activities that were already going on in print culture. It’s a faster bicycle, not a car, and not an airplane. It is fundamentally unimaginative, and its business plan seems to be to appeal to administrators who want a more automated process of doing Business As Usual. With “Caliper,” the assessment module that’s their Fourth Leg (after the “Learning System,” the “Portal,” and the “Content Management”/E-Portfolio legs), they will have Business As Usual all sewn up in a Web 1.0 read-this-but-don’t-write-back bag. No rip mix feed need apply.

Web 2.0 means “enough already.” At least, that’s what it means to me.

]]> By: Tony Karrer http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/03/19/web-2-0-makes-me-cringe/#comment-81595 Tony Karrer Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-81595 While Web 2.0 and eLearning 2.0 are both relatively amorphous, I think that there is definitely something about this. I agree with you that it's definitely overused, but wouldn't you say that there's some real value to these terms to help explain that "there's something different going on now" I think you gave me your take on some of my posts before, but I'd be surprised if you don't at least have a gut reaction on this stuff: http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/02/does-elearning-20-make-difference.html http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/02/learning-trends-point-to-and-shape.html http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/03/rosenbergs-beyond-elearning-is-that.html While Web 2.0 and eLearning 2.0 are both relatively amorphous, I think that there is definitely something about this. I agree with you that it’s definitely overused, but wouldn’t you say that there’s some real value to these terms to help explain that “there’s something different going on now” I think you gave me your take on some of my posts before, but I’d be surprised if you don’t at least have a gut reaction on this stuff:

http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/02/does-elearning-20-make-difference.html

http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/02/learning-trends-point-to-and-shape.html

http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/03/rosenbergs-beyond-elearning-is-that.html

]]> By: D'Arcy http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/03/19/web-2-0-makes-me-cringe/#comment-81596 D'Arcy Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-81596 I've got a problem with the term "eLearning" in the first place, so don't get me started :-) It's just learning. Nothing magical about it. The "e" is just a set of tools used to facilitate the communication that can lead to learning. "eLearning 2.0" is equally meaningless, but buzzword compliant. The real shift isn't represented in version numbers, or cute prefixes to words. It's about decentralization, and empowering (as well as recognizing) the individual. That has nothing to do with 1.0 or 2.0. It doesn't even require online tools or electricity. The real shift is so much more important than that. I feel an essay coming on. Might save it up for a bigger, more coheret piece :-) I’ve got a problem with the term “eLearning” in the first place, so don’t get me started :-) It’s just learning. Nothing magical about it. The “e” is just a set of tools used to facilitate the communication that can lead to learning. “eLearning 2.0″ is equally meaningless, but buzzword compliant.

The real shift isn’t represented in version numbers, or cute prefixes to words. It’s about decentralization, and empowering (as well as recognizing) the individual. That has nothing to do with 1.0 or 2.0. It doesn’t even require online tools or electricity. The real shift is so much more important than that. I feel an essay coming on. Might save it up for a bigger, more coheret piece :-)

]]> By: Gardner http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/03/19/web-2-0-makes-me-cringe/#comment-81597 Gardner Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-81597 I dunno, D'Arcy: "decentralization" and "empowering ... the individual" look like buzzwords to me, too. Part of what makes school work is a systematic voluntary disempowerment on the part of both student and teacher, a kind of mutual surrender. And I don't know what "decentralization" means anymore. I'd be happy to have a central place that organized our digital assets and make them readily accessible. I'd be ecstatic to have a central something that would allow distributed authorship throughout the enterprise (and I'm not just talking Contribute, either). I fought to establish a centralized non-print media collection when I got here, many years ago. The "decentralized" collections we had consisted of closets in each department that housed musty old videotapes that students couldn't have accessed even if they had wanted to, which by and large they wouldn't have. And departments didn't want to give those collections up. They spoke up in favor of "decentralization" and against "the man" (or whatever) who would take their resources away and pool them for the common good. And for the record, I think networked high-speed computers really do represent a difference in degree that's so large it amounts to a difference in kind--in kind of communication, and in the possibilities for civilization. A book is a tool, too, but it enabled rapid and complex leaps forward in civilization that would not otherwise have been possible. I dunno, D’Arcy: “decentralization” and “empowering … the individual” look like buzzwords to me, too. Part of what makes school work is a systematic voluntary disempowerment on the part of both student and teacher, a kind of mutual surrender. And I don’t know what “decentralization” means anymore. I’d be happy to have a central place that organized our digital assets and make them readily accessible. I’d be ecstatic to have a central something that would allow distributed authorship throughout the enterprise (and I’m not just talking Contribute, either). I fought to establish a centralized non-print media collection when I got here, many years ago. The “decentralized” collections we had consisted of closets in each department that housed musty old videotapes that students couldn’t have accessed even if they had wanted to, which by and large they wouldn’t have. And departments didn’t want to give those collections up. They spoke up in favor of “decentralization” and against “the man” (or whatever) who would take their resources away and pool them for the common good.

And for the record, I think networked high-speed computers really do represent a difference in degree that’s so large it amounts to a difference in kind–in kind of communication, and in the possibilities for civilization. A book is a tool, too, but it enabled rapid and complex leaps forward in civilization that would not otherwise have been possible.

]]> By: D'Arcy http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/03/19/web-2-0-makes-me-cringe/#comment-81598 D'Arcy Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-81598 Gardner - touché. I'm not saying this stuff isn't important or meaningful, just absolutely hating the dilution of any meaningful description of it by marketroid rainmakers looking to monetize their ROI via synergistic dotcombulation. Gardner – touché. I’m not saying this stuff isn’t important or meaningful, just absolutely hating the dilution of any meaningful description of it by marketroid rainmakers looking to monetize their ROI via synergistic dotcombulation.

]]> By: Gardner http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/03/19/web-2-0-makes-me-cringe/#comment-81599 Gardner Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-81599 I'm certainly with you there. ;-) I’m certainly with you there. ;-)

]]> By: Josie Fraser http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/03/19/web-2-0-makes-me-cringe/#comment-81600 Josie Fraser Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-81600 I'm really interested in communities and shared identities - I've actually gone over to the web 2.0 side after being cringed out for a while. I agree completely with arguments that it can be used as a short-hand term to gloss over ignorance and appear in the know, as well as operating as a formal (maybe even prescriptive) set of standards. What I like it for though is that it creates a shared language and set of meanings - and the fact that those meanings are contested is the exact reason why it works for me. There's simultaneously a general agreement and an always-having-to-be negotiated tension. If you look historically at the names given to other phases - third-wave feminism is one that springs immediately to mind - you'll see the same kind of arguments about their validity. This thrashing out of what it is we mean and why or why not we should call it something are to me the real guts of change and shifts in perception and action. I’m really interested in communities and shared identities – I’ve actually gone over to the web 2.0 side after being cringed out for a while. I agree completely with arguments that it can be used as a short-hand term to gloss over ignorance and appear in the know, as well as operating as a formal (maybe even prescriptive) set of standards. What I like it for though is that it creates a shared language and set of meanings – and the fact that those meanings are contested is the exact reason why it works for me. There’s simultaneously a general agreement and an always-having-to-be negotiated tension. If you look historically at the names given to other phases – third-wave feminism is one that springs immediately to mind – you’ll see the same kind of arguments about their validity. This thrashing out of what it is we mean and why or why not we should call it something are to me the real guts of change and shifts in perception and action.

]]> By: Scott Leslie http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/03/19/web-2-0-makes-me-cringe/#comment-81601 Scott Leslie Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-81601 My next compnay is going to be a Web "the square root of -1" startup - irrationality roolz, d00d! My next compnay is going to be a Web “the square root of -1″ startup – irrationality roolz, d00d!

]]> By: gillian http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/03/19/web-2-0-makes-me-cringe/#comment-81602 gillian Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-81602 Amen, bro. Personally, whenever I hear someone say "web two..." I start thinking about my grocery list. I wish people would be specific about what they're talking about (i.e., the technologies they're using) rather than just use a buzzword to mask all of that information, thinking that we'll be dumbly impressed. Amen, bro. Personally, whenever I hear someone say “web two…” I start thinking about my grocery list. I wish people would be specific about what they’re talking about (i.e., the technologies they’re using) rather than just use a buzzword to mask all of that information, thinking that we’ll be dumbly impressed.

]]>