On Web 2 and CC
I haven't yet read the Web 2.0 Storytelling chapter on DS106 - I've skimmed through it and it looks pretty interesting -I think it's going to go on my spring break reading list (so sometime in March). I did however (quickly) go over the O'Reily "what is Web 2.0" and the educause 7 things of Creative Commons (which admittedly I have read before but not in a long time).
My main thought about Web 2.0 is that we ought to not be calling it "Web 2.0" but rather just call it "the web." Perhaps back in the early to mid 2000s when this stuff was new it was useful to differentiate how the "old' web was different from the "new" web. The new web however has been with us for quite some time now, so it's no longer new. As a matter of fact any newness is iterative, a "Web 2.0.010" if you will. We don't pay attention to iterations (no matter how amazing they are) we just use them - so why fixate on the "two point oh" part? To be clear, I am not bashing O'reilly, but rather I am making a general commentary on our internet using society and how we've latched on to "two point oh".
This reminds me of a parallel in consumer electronics. The iPad 2 is no longer called "the iPad 2", but rather it's called the iPad. Back in 2007 I was listening to a podcast on video games. Up to that point they referred to the XBOX 360, Playstation 3 and Wii as "next generation consoles", but those devices had already been to market for 2 or more years, so the hosts of this podcast (correctly) pondered when does one stop calling something "next gen" when it is so obviously "current gen". Next gen (and by extension "two point oh") mean something new, something that wasn't the case before. "Two point oh" has become current gen, and it's time to just take it as the norm :-)
As far as creative commons goes I love the concept. More people, especially academics, need to be releasing their work as creative commons. I released my Master's capstone project under a CC license with the hope that other language teachers (of the Greek language) would use it as a template and expand on it to create new college level curriculum. Having knowledge (and items of cultural significance) stuck behind a copyright wall is a travesty.
I was reading an article on the technologizer the other day, on why history needs piracy, which made some pretty valid points - not that piracy is good, but rather that anti-piracy laws and crazy copyright are preventing the archiving and preservation of important cultural works (namely computer software). If more people released their works under CC, or if companies took copyrighted materials that they have obviously abandoned because they are not economically viable, and released them under a CC license those things would be saved and experienced by future generations (or the current generation that didn't have the privileged position to experience them in the first place).
Of course, having said that, change is hard, and existing structures are not easy to break away from unless you are really determined and unless others are right there with you, supporting you and acting ina similar manner :-)
My main thought about Web 2.0 is that we ought to not be calling it "Web 2.0" but rather just call it "the web." Perhaps back in the early to mid 2000s when this stuff was new it was useful to differentiate how the "old' web was different from the "new" web. The new web however has been with us for quite some time now, so it's no longer new. As a matter of fact any newness is iterative, a "Web 2.0.010" if you will. We don't pay attention to iterations (no matter how amazing they are) we just use them - so why fixate on the "two point oh" part? To be clear, I am not bashing O'reilly, but rather I am making a general commentary on our internet using society and how we've latched on to "two point oh".
This reminds me of a parallel in consumer electronics. The iPad 2 is no longer called "the iPad 2", but rather it's called the iPad. Back in 2007 I was listening to a podcast on video games. Up to that point they referred to the XBOX 360, Playstation 3 and Wii as "next generation consoles", but those devices had already been to market for 2 or more years, so the hosts of this podcast (correctly) pondered when does one stop calling something "next gen" when it is so obviously "current gen". Next gen (and by extension "two point oh") mean something new, something that wasn't the case before. "Two point oh" has become current gen, and it's time to just take it as the norm :-)
As far as creative commons goes I love the concept. More people, especially academics, need to be releasing their work as creative commons. I released my Master's capstone project under a CC license with the hope that other language teachers (of the Greek language) would use it as a template and expand on it to create new college level curriculum. Having knowledge (and items of cultural significance) stuck behind a copyright wall is a travesty.
I was reading an article on the technologizer the other day, on why history needs piracy, which made some pretty valid points - not that piracy is good, but rather that anti-piracy laws and crazy copyright are preventing the archiving and preservation of important cultural works (namely computer software). If more people released their works under CC, or if companies took copyrighted materials that they have obviously abandoned because they are not economically viable, and released them under a CC license those things would be saved and experienced by future generations (or the current generation that didn't have the privileged position to experience them in the first place).
Of course, having said that, change is hard, and existing structures are not easy to break away from unless you are really determined and unless others are right there with you, supporting you and acting ina similar manner :-)
Comments