A grande coqueluche dos visionários da época era criar empresas na web para vender por valores astronômicos. Zipmail, Miner, Zaz, Bol, enfim, várias pontocom eram criadas e, qualquer relevância alcançada, eram vendidas por milhares de dólares/reais.

Neste início, os usuários se conformavam em acessar sites diversos, sem influenciar nos conteúdos. Só existia o emissor, sem qualquer interferência do receptor.

Durante essa era, considerada pré-histórica na internet, a única interação entre usuários era através de salas de bate-papo de grandes portais e mensagens de e-mail.

Todos tinham o sonho de criar uma empresa pontocom para ficar milionário de uma hora para outra, tanto que a bolsa americana criou um pregão especialmente para isso: a Nasdaq.

Quando o sonho se tornou pesadelo, com o estouro da bolha especulativa, a internet tomou novos rumos, com o receptor se tornando a nova ‘estrela’ na elaboração do conteúdo.

Lembrando que, mesmo na época da Web 1.0, já havia a participação do usuário no desenvolvimento de conteúdo web como fóruns, listas de discussão e o MIRC. Sites como Geocities, kitchnet, entre outros disponibilizavam ferramentas para que os usuários criassem suas próprias páginas, mais ou menos como precursores dos blogs.

Com a Web 2.0, os internautas começaram a vislumbrar com a possibilidade de contribuir, de alguma forma, com as informações ali contidas.

Se antes, alguns usuários passavam ‘pouco tempo’ conectados à rede, a possibilidade de produzir conteúdo fez com que, praticamente, triplicassem seu acesso à internet.

Sites como orkut, blogspot, flickr, youtube, digg, entre outros, revolucionaram a maneira de se interagir entre as pessoas, influenciando todas as outras mídias.

A web atualmente é do usuário. É ele quem dita as regras do que ver e como ver.

Blogs influenciam a opinião de outros meios. O Youtube transforma desconhecidos em celebridades instantâneas, assim como destrói algumas reputações. Flickr e Picasa mostram os bons e maus momentos das pessoas, com a possibilidade de outros usuários compartilharem desses momentos, escolhendo suas fotos preferidas e avaliando as melhores.

É nesta possibilidade de interagir na web, seja com comentários em sites, através de mensagens instântaneas, blogs pessoais — onde as pessoas podem ter sua própria página, seu veículo — e até outras formas para aqueles que não desenvolvem muito a escrita, através de vídeos, fotos e áudios, que reside o grande diferencial da web 2.0. Enquanto a primeira geração da internet estava mais voltada para a tecnologia, as facilidades no campo empresarial e econômico, ao acesso a dados, a páginas estáticas e serviços, a segunda passou a ser um ambiente alterado pelo usuário, uma plataforma onde qualquer um pode consumir e produzir conteúdo de forma simples. Graças ao advento da web 2.0, o público deixou de ser espectador passivo, ele também passou a gerar conteúdos e opinar sobre aquilo que recebe dos meios tradicionais. Nem o jornal, nem o rádio e nem a televisão conseguiu esse patamar de interatividade. E hoje, esses meios utilizam de suas plataformas de internet para interagir com o público e também propagar o conteúdo produzido por eles.

Apesar dos termos empregados: web 1.0, web 2.0, para mim, nada mais é que uma evolução da ferramenta internet. Na primeira geração os usuários estavam passivos, aprendendo a conviver com este novo mecanismo, aproveitando suas facilidades, como o correio eletrônico e a possibilidade de realizar uma compra ou fazer um pagamento bancário via online. Mais familiarizado com o espaço virtual, com o avanço da tecnologia que passou a colocar novas ferramentas à disposição, bem como equipamentos como câmeras e gravadores digitais, a web logo se tornou um espaço para que todos tivessem voz e pudessem se mostrar e atuar em áreas que geram fascínio, como o jornalismo e as artes.

O público está cada vez mais se legitimando no meio web, ferramentas como a Wikipedia, a enciclopédia livre, abastecida por seus usuários, torna-se um mecanismo de informação importante, usado como fonte e referência até mesmo por jornalistas. Apesar de não ser totalmente confiável, sua facilidade de acesso e consenso a faz uma fonte prática de informação num mundo tecnológico facilitado. Afinal, quem hoje pensa ainda em procurar entre diversos livros de grosso volume um verbete para ter informações? Sendo que estes nem contemplam muitos dos termos empregados hoje em dia por causa da própria internet.

Os meios de comunicação, principalmente os jornais impressos são um bom exemplo de como a web 2.0 alterou o comportamento do usuário e a principal diferença com a web 1.0. Na primeira geração da internet, os sites dos veículos nada mais eram que uma reprodução do seu conteúdo offline. Apenas um serviço a mais, uma outra  ferramenta de leitura do jornal. Hoje, jornais no mundo inteiro sofrem alterações para vivenciar a experiência offline e online ao mesmo tempo, em redações integradas. Os sites passaram a ter mais atualizações, com notícias em tempo real e com a possibilidade de o público interagir e interferir no conteúdo, através de comentários, seja para discutir o assunto, apontar erros, fazer críticas e até mesmo passar informações que complementam as  reportagens. Além disso, ganhou espaços próprios para produzir seu próprio conteúdo, seja informativo ou de entretenimento. Através da internet, o leitor pode ser o repórter do jornal que lê através do jornalismo participativo. Diversos veículos dispõem de um espaço para que ele publique as notícias de sua comunidade, fatos que não ganham espaço na mídia tradicional, como um buraco de rua ou as decisões de uma associação de moradores de bairro. Exemplos disso são o I Report, da CNN, Yo Periodista, do El Pais , Você no G1, do site G1,  Leitor-Repórter, do jornal Zero Hora, vc repórter, do Terra, entre outros.

Além disso, o público tem a chance de também expor conteúdo de caráter pessoal, como fotos de família ou de alguma tema proposto pelo veículo, como por exemplo, a festa de aniversário da cidade, aproximando a pessoa comum da notícia e dando espaço para que todos possam aparecer e não apenas os  colunáveis.
Concordo com Frederick van Amstel, editor do blog Usabilidoido quando diz que "o que está funcionando na Web 2.0 não são as comunidades, mas sim a ampliação de oportunidades para que ilustres desconhecidos brilhem como sempre desejaram". Essa nova geração da web está em processo, ainda não evolui como espaço público que é, onde quem tem acesso à internet tem direito a dar sua opinião e discutir temas de interesse da sociedade.

Apesar de ser esse poderos espaço de discussão, através de comunidades e fóruns, o que se nota é que todos querem falar, mas são poucos os que querem ouvir, ou seja, todos emitem suas opiniões, com muito pouca interação entre eles. Falta às comunidades usar mais este espaço como ferramenta de denúncia e reivindicação de seus problemas, de tal forma que os órgãos responsáveis e os poderes locais sintam-se ameaçados pelos conteúdos, assim como se sentem pela mídia tradicional, e pudessem atender às necessidades de uma rua ou bairro que sofre com um buraco ou a falta de saneamento, por exemplo. Falta na web 2.0 um uso mais cidadão e transformador. Para isso, é preciso que as pessoas utilizem mais os espaços oferecidos e os jornalistas que fazem essa mediação aprendam como lidar com as informações oferecidas por seu público.

As you can see from the chart, Web 1.0 was about connectivity, Web 2.0 is about interactivity, and Web 3.0 will be about personalization. As the web evolves, companies will need to evolve with it. In my last post, I shared the McKinsey on Web 2.0 study with you. There are still many companies struggling to adopt the new paradigm of Web 2.0. If it has taken this long for it to finally reach mainstream, how long will it take them to adopt Web 3.0?

It is my belief that the leap from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 is the largest. The simple reason is that it fundamentally changes the belief system upon which corporate America has operated for decades. Once a company understands that it is no longer in control and that the web is the ultimate choice vehicle, Web 3.0 is an easy transition. It simply requires implementing the tools to give customers options based on their preferences and based on a permission marketing model. Web 3.0 is simply giving consumers greater choice.

Where have you seen Web 3.0 application beginning to rear their little heads?

Telurica TV 190 - Web 3.0, helados y sincronizados.
Interesante video sobre el Web 3.0.

Now, just as they're coming to grips with Web 2.0, they've learnt from Google University that Web 3.0 is just around the corner. I don't have the heart to tell them that so far, it's actually just Web 2.1, but everyone inflates their version numbers to fool you into thinking that their thing is bigger than it really is …

Maybe we hang on to our labels way past their shelf life. We don't say 'Distance Education' all that much because on the web, it's all distance education. But we still use 'Flexible Learning', when it's all flexible learning - apart from the odd Boot Camp here and there.

And we still talk about 'Web 2.0' in a web world richly populated with collaborative, interactive, media-rich, multi-user experiences. Why? Once it might have been  appropriate to highlight the unique benefits of a small, new sector of the web experience by giving it a special label. But now, when the unique has become ubiquitous, what's the point?

Let's retire Web 2.0 as a label. If it's not all Web 2.0 now, it soon will be.

2. Key differences between web 1.0 and Web 2.0, FirstMonday, June 2008

"Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower." Steve Jobs

How do you view the future of low-tech tools such as desktop publishing software, and is there a worthwhile space for publishing tools in today's curriculum?

This would have been an easy question, if it weren't for the word "future". Pondering what the future of education and the use of low-tech tools may be is an exercise in analyzing complicated concurrent events!

Let's look at the low-tech desktop publishing software individually. The innovation of software is the ease in which anyone can access it - for free - through Web 2.0 websites. The power of Web 1.0 was commerce. The power of Web 2.0 is people. Empowering people to connect, communicate, and create information is the strength of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 websites crop up in beta formats with the direct desire to create a tool that will work for the people who desire to use it. Innovation of the tool is styled by everyday people with everyday purposes. These purposes lean heavily toward applications for the business world. Check out the Web 2.0 Summit 2008 website and note how much of the summit is geared toward educational interests. Nada. The future of software technology is definitely not low-tech desktop publishing software. Not for business. But, what about education?

The Web 2.0 Summit 2008 is narrowing its focus this year to this question, "How can the web, its technologies, its values, and its culture be tapped to address pressing opportunities?" This question is based on the assumption that complex systems are reaching their limits. Complex systems like: financial markets, healthcare, religious wars. From harnessing collective intelligence to a bias toward open systems - worldwide issues could approach solution through innovative Web 2.0 social movements.

How far away from understanding the value and essential nature of digital information can the United States educational system be? While our "complex system" discusses how to integrate technology within strict guidelines, control, and restraint - the world is opening up. The question becomes, "As a complex system has education as we know it reached its limit? "

David Warlick, posed this question to NECC 2008 attendees, "What do you believe are the fundamental disruptive conditions that are demanding a new kind of educational institution?" Two interesting responses follow:

From Lee Kobert: "This may be politically incorrect, but I believe the compulsion to be politically correct in every area, really shortchanges the kids. The desire to avoid conflict, and perhaps litigation, at all cost in our schools has caused us to do bizarre things in the name of “increasing graduation rates” or “protecting the feelings” of our children. For example, we’ve removed playground equipment and snuffed out recess from the elementary school day, banned awards ceremonies because not everyone gets an award, locked down Internet sites based on a single parent’s complaint, changed the content of history books and give extra credit for bringing in cans of food for food drives. The top-down pressure has caused our creative teachers to cower in the corners of their classrooms, waiting for the door to close so they can teach away from the worksheets and #2 bubble forms. I imagine an education institution where project-based learning and the whole student is allowed on the educational playground, even if he/she may get a bruised knee!

And this from Barbara Jansen:

"Another disruptive condition is the prevalence of technology in the workplace--not just using Microsoft Word, but using technology to solve problems and redefine the traditional ways of doing business, from conducting research to communicating with clients. Traditional administrators and teachers (those who still teach the way they learned in high school and college in the 1950s-mid 90s) sometimes have a difficult time seeing a need for, and identifying how 21st century skills fit into their curriculum so that we can prepare students for success in the workplace. State educational learning standards are far behind the real world. It can take ten or more years for a state to update standards, then many more for them to actually filter down into the curriculum that is actually taught. How can we expedite this process?"

If we believe that desktop publishing as we know it, is a thing of the past for the business world, can it still have significance for education? And, better still - should it?

The answer lies in your fundamental beliefs about education. Is "good enough" enough? Is what is easy, the best? Is teaching to the test, education? I think China answered a resounding, "No!" to "all of the above" when they procured an e-learning deal with the UK. From the BBC, "Education and training are increasingly being seen as an important export market - with a report last week claiming that it was earning more for the UK economy than financial services or the car industry." The United Kingdom's innovative e-learning techniques have rendered them a leader - and the United States - a follower. Our educational systems recreate the wheel in each individual state - we do not collaborate between states to create a collaborated curriculum - how can we merge into collaboration with the world?

So then, is there a space for publishing tools in today's curriculum. Yes. Students must learn how to publish their thoughts into dynamic presentations that may include: newsletters, magazines, flyers, and brochures. The digital formats that desktop publishing allows can introduce students to the Internet as "information provider" platform (Web 1.0). Our need for present day desktop publishing amplifies our loss of opportunity to collaborate with others in Web 2.0 applications.

I leave you with this, "How can the web, its technologies, its values, and its culture be tapped to address pressing opportunities in education?" The answer lies among the collaborative technologies of Web 2.0. Perhaps we should be on the invitation list for Web 2.0 Summit 2008 for our students' sake.

Many of us are familiar with web 1.0. If you want to take a walk down memory lane with the internet check out the Wayback Machine to see the development of websites from back in the 90s.

"Web 1.0 was commerce. Web 2.0 is people"-Ross Mayfield

Aspects of Web 1.0

The website is controlled by one person, the Webmaster.

Content is created and controlled by the Webmaster.

Updating was often slow and group collaboration was nonexistent. If an organization had information that regularly changed it had to have a large tech staff that controlled the website. If the organization was a small not for profit or ministry there were no other options for getting information out to stakeholders, clients, and employees other than paper. A big cost.

Web 1.0 software was downloaded and used on a computer or purchased at the store. Often did not work or was complicated and frustrating. This software tethered you to that computer, you could not use it elsewhere.

Web 1.0, not fun.

"Some technological revolutions arrive as revelation. You hear a human voice wafting out from a rotating plastic disk or see a moving train projected onto a screen, and you sense instantly that the world has changed. For many of us, our first encounter with the World Wide Web a decade ago was one of those transformative experiences: You clicked on a word on the screen, and instantly you were transported to some other page that was served up from a computer located somewhere else, across the planet perhaps. After you followed that first hyperlink, you knew the universe of information would never be the same."

I remember too.

I would have loved to be the first to publish an article with such name given the previous efforts of this blog, but it really does not matter. What is important is that there are more of us speaking about the challenges ahead for the constantly changing patient-health professional relationship.

I would like to thank all, the authors, for their bold vision; the publishers for seeing the author's vision and; to all patients, for their patience...

Here is the abstract:

Modern Healthcare Systems that have embraced ICT and Internet technologies (referred to as Health 1.0) are evolving towards self management but from a clinical knowledge perspective. In contrast, from a user experience perspective, and using the latest web 2.0 technologies, the developing healthcare social networking communities (referred to as Health 2.0) are evolving towards becoming online medical portals.The growing Grand Challenge for healthcare is therefore: how will health care services (Health 1.0) work together with user-generated health care (Health 2.0) in a consumer market place delivering self management services for a healthier lifestyle and medical compliance. What is foreseen is that the self care information tool of the future will be a combination between the patient's observation record and the Internet, with the doctor and the patient positioned together at the intersection but not having to pay attention to the technology.This article deals with various aspects related to this Grand Challenge like the paradigm shift towards a needs-led and consumer-oriented healthcare, the role, supply and quality of information and the changing doctor-patient relationship.

Was aber bedeutet Web 2.0 in deiner Surfkultur?

Die geneigte Internetnutzerin (auch Du!) bevorzugt tolle Webdienste. Zum Beispiel:

• Wikipedia. Tolle Inhalte, qualitätiv hochwertig.
• Rezensionen bei Amazon. Tolle Hilfestellungen zur Kaufentscheidung.
• Foren. Ein Problem - eine Lösung.
• StudiVZ (hier gibts kein Link von mir). Die Hälfte aller Studierenden sind drin!
• ...

Was die meisten Nutzerinnen dabei nicht wissen ist, dass engagierte Menschen (Laien und Profis gleichermaßen) sich aktiv an der Erstellung der Inhalte beteiligen. Dass sich Menschen vernetzen, weil sie selber nicht mehr nur konsumieren sondern selbst produzieren wollen. Kunst, Kultur und Gesellschaft beeinflussen. Eine "heimliche Medienrevolution" sozusagen.

Warum also? Teilen macht Spaß! Ich und das Web 2.0.

Du beschäfftigst dich mit interessanten Themen, z.B. Leseförderung? Informiere mich!

• Teile dein Wissen mit Menschen die sich dafür interessieren. Du freust dich doch auch jedes mal wenn du im Internet die Informationen findest, die du suchst. Höre auf zu konsumieren. Stelle selber Informationen ins Netz. Teile! (Hilfestellung: Blogs in Plain English)

Du fotografierst gerne? Zeige es mir!

• Teile deine Bilder mit Menschen, die sich für Fotografie interessieren. Nicht jede ist eine Fotografin. Nicht jede erfüllt die hohen künstlerischen oder technischen Standarts. Na und? Wenn du die Bilder nur bei dir im Schrank zu stehen hast, wundere dich bitte nicht über das fehlende Feedback. Höre auf zu konsumieren. Teile! (Hilfestellung: Fotosharing in Plain English)

Du bist mit offenen Augen im Netz unterwegs? Hilf mir!

• Teile deine Fundstücke mit Menschen, die sich für gute Informationen interessieren. Nicht jede Nutzerin, kann auf den ersten Blick erkennen, ob ein Link bei Google Müll enthält ist oder nicht? Nicht alle können so wunderbar mit Informationen umgehen wie du. Höre auf zu konsumieren und mache deine Bemühungen für andere Sichtbar. Du findest eine Seite informativ, dann sammel diese ein einer für andere zugängliche Weise. Teile! (Hilfestellung: Social Tagging in Plain English)

Read More

Why are people slow to adopt the philosophy that there's always a better way to do something? Even worse why do some people flatly refuse to even consider it?

Maybe I'm jumping the gun here. Of course I know that better ideologies and processes will be adopted in the future and that is without a question of a doubt the only way businesses are going to stay in business in the future. Maybe it's not so apparent right now but you'll soon start to notice these differences when you realise that home-life is very much integrating and cross-mixing with work-life. It's happening already, all you have to do is gaze over your shoulders into the distance at the "work @ home" crowd and the "I commute twice a week" crowd and the "What is this 'car' you speak of?" crowds to have a glimpse of an understanding of this concept.

Eyes back here people, I know you're all dreaming about it, the lure of working at home. Maybe you'll find a position one day where you can earn a living AND live your earning. What a concept!

Well anyway what I'd really like to see is more Web 2.0 ideologies integrated into our Web 1.0 style businesses and let's face it, it's gonna happen sooner or later. Let us, as technological evangelists, look at our technology and processes and make a concerted effort to improve the way we conduct business. Let's get rid of the long paper trails, the unnecessary amount of printing, the incorrect use of tools and software to accomplish a task. Think and implement!

And I leave this with you, may your signal to noise ratio be low and your tech be high. Amen.

Creo que no nos damos cuenta de que lo bonito de un producto interactivo es el funcionamiento en sí. La cantidad de cosas a las que debemos atender en una web como la usabilidad, el SEO, la escalabilidad, accesibilidad, etc dejan la espectacularidad gráfica en un segundo/tercer plano. Al final de tanto diseñar el producto para el buen funcionamiento, se acaba haciendo bonito por efectivo.

Por otro lado la decisión de los contenidos es francamente mala y la elección de los formatos y de los reproductores de vídeo también. Es imposible apuntar a un objetivo con empresas grandes, al final los proyectos son una suma de despropósitos.

Para que nos hagamos una idea al usuario le "gusta" más esto pero utiliza esto. Por eso pienso que lo que diga el usuario no me importa sólo quiero saber lo que hace. Porque el usuario sabe más lo que quiere parecer que lo quiere ser.

No abre posibilidades a la generación de una comunidad virtual, y de esta manera ve imposibilitados principios de la web 2.0 relacionados al potencial rol del usiario, como el desarrollo de las experiencias del mismo, que busca mejorar cada vez más las aplicaciones de la página. Tampoco aprovecha de gran manera la inteligencia colectiva, el usuario no es un generador de contenidos y no tiene una participación importante. Sólo aparecen opciones como el contactarse vía mail y el responder una pregunta de encuesta diaria.

El aspecto más relacionado a la web 2.0 de la página de Radio Biobio son los podcast, que invitan al usuario a conocer los programas de ésta. Asuntos pendientes, La Crónica de Ruperto Concha y un servicio de Efemérides, son las opciones. Pero, para colmo de éstas, son opciones que se ven imposibilitas de utilizar para el usario, pues no están lo suficientemente actualizadas como para acceder a ellas.

De esta manera, la página web de Radio Biobio está quedando cada vez más atrasada con respecto a la competencia de sitios como Radio Cooperativa y ADN Radio, entre otras, pues en éstas se pueden apreciar avances hacia una web 2.0, cosa que en el sitio web de radio Biobio no sucede.

Héctor Cancino S.

OK, OK, so this report was commissioned by a company that has a vested interest in email marketing. But common sense still dictates that something as simple and effective as email is going to continue to have a crucial role in online communication, especially since the alternatives are getting increasingly sophisticated and complicated. While a few specialised people will live on the bleeding edge and undertake the work required to stay that way, many people will just go for the simple option.

But there was one question that I thought was quite interesting and where I think my response would have been equal to any that they came up with. The question was "What topic/theme do you think we will look back in 3 to 5 years and wonder why it was even a discussion point?". While I can't remember the exact responses given, clearly nothing was said to really impress me.

I believe that one thing the industry needs to move beyond is this concept of web 1.0, web 2.0 and now (thanks Eric) web 3.0. And related to these - web analytics 1.0, 2.0 and I am guessing 3.0. I think people are trying to differentiate when they just don't need to. And in the process, using another set of buzzwords that are not clearly defined.

To me, what people call web 1.0 is a website where people have just transplanted offline media onto the internet and expected it to work. Smart people (with potentially more time/resources) recognise that the internet is a different medium and create content that uses the potential of this medium. So called web 2.0 features are still a waste of time if they are not appropriate to the website or audience.

I just plain disagree with the idea of mobile being web 3.0. It is still the internet via a smaller screen with people likely not at home or at work. Therefore yet another medium and again the smart people are the ones who create content appropriate to this medium, content that works within the limitations but uses the advantages.

I had written a couple of lines about how I find there to be minimal difference between web analytics 1.0 and web analytics 2.0. But these are now deleted as I have reread a post by Avinash (http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/2007/09/rethink-web-analytics-introducing-web-analytics-20.html) which does differentiate them quite nicely. I still don't think they need to be called 1.0 and 2.0 though - it still seems to me as though 1.0 is just looking at numbers/data while web analytics 2.0 is focusing on customers and actually using your brain. It sounds a little similar to art vs science.

In 3 to 5 years time, I hope we will have got beyond this need for differentiation and be focussed on improving websites to meet customer needs, whatever they are and however this is best achieved.

Web 2.0 es una extensión, que permite leer y escribir, concediendo a los usuarios un papel activo.

Web 3.0 podría extender este papel permitiendo que la gente además de "leer y escribir" pueda modificar el sitio web.

Web 1.0 + Web 2.0 = Web 3.0. Simple y colaborativo.

Web 1.0 dead and buried now, with little but the waybackmachine to show for and the world, the web and sociability changed drastically within the medium. Newsgroups made way for forums, we became bloggers, authors of our anonymous life stories and sudden social beasts in a mashup world that now engulfs everything from your noisy desktop computer to twits on your cell phone. A word now about the concept of “immediate”: weekly updates are now substituted by 15 minute updates in a micro blogging platform, the concept of asynchronous communication remains unaltered but regardless of that you are living a fully synchronous life, surrounded with updates from a dozen services at the same time. Our access to information is instantaneous (or seems that way) with rss feeds, instant messaging from bots and email snippets every time a message drops on your inbox. Suddenly we need a productivity framework. it’s not we have more to do, it’s just we have more information to process. I’m sure that if you are reading this post you are the kind of person that can’t really make a clear line between what is personal from professional. We see opportunity everywhere, we all have an entrepreneurial spirit, even if your job is to comment some other guy’s code or load laptop images as a junior helpdesk. We took the red pill and we followed the white rabbit and suddenly our inside jokes are everyone’s jokes.

But I digress. This was supposed to be a post about identity. Identity version 2.0. We’re no longer our personal webpage. We’re a blog, a linkedin profile, a common alias on forums, twitter, last.fm... but above all things, now it’s not that the chances of someone loading your personal webpage are slim, it’s the exact opposite. A future employer will type your name in a search box, read your blog posts, see what you are up to in twitter and even know music preferences.

Even the concept of alias (nickname, moniker, username, whatever you wish) changed. I remember when it hid our true identities, because we were blueboxing or wardialing numbers to see if we could hit a private bbs or (if one was lucky as hell) a dial up access to some serious computing power. Now an alias is as important as our real name, as it identifies us to our social network every time we enroll in yet another service.

It’s a live organization of you, and you have little to no control over it. If I search my name on google I get my likedin profile first, then my blog, then my work with oxygen and then it’s random stuff...a photographer, a soccer player with the same name as me, and a few pages ahead there’s a guy with my name asking in a newsgroup about the purity of the arian race... I’d be very worried if this last one was the first hit in a search engine.

So there’s a balance here, between what you want the world to know about you and what the world can assume about you.

You can control the first part, by having a gateway in a service, a blog or a mashup like mugshot would do. linking everything you deem interesting and that you vouch for (your last.fm, twitter, flickr, etc). but what can be googled about you, or supposedly about you is much harder to harness.

I cursed linden labs for not allowing me to pick my last name on Second Life. My identity is my name, not my avatar, I know their business is to push in the opposite direction, but that’s just ignoring what the online world has become. I have several accounts on Second Life. Actually, most people who use the service do...and I believe that’s because Linden has failed to create a sense of identity in their avatars. People don’t create an emotional attachment to them. Avatars are ever changing, and even though you can pick any shape or clothing, you can’t pick a name. Second life is also an island... it’s detached from the rest of the online world. it doesn’t interact with any social services, pushing its own “group” system. People who are joining the service ask me who I am there...and that’s a question that shouldn’t make sense in this day and age. I have email, openid, a common alias... anything could be used to extend the existing social network onto Second Life.

To round it up, It seems that the only way to control your ever changing online identity is to actively mold it by being a constant part of it, the good news is that if this is something you worry about, in all probability you are already doing something about it.

So I've finally done it. I've joined the blogging community.

Those of you that know me and in particular my personal views on most things 'web2.0', will know that starting up a blog was as likely a move as my saying " damn, I really need to by an iPhone today*"; which is to say, those individuals that I am referring to will be some what surprised at this move.

Despite my outward dislike of all thing web2.0, this is not quite an impulsive move on my part, I've spent the last 18 months contemplating a blog of my own, secretly considering it more of a test bed for future writings, editorial content and perhaps the occasional bit of public speaking, rather than a blog. I may be fooling myself here, but time will tell.

It's not that I dislike web2.0 in general, I actually love some bits a great deal, I’m just a little old school, and prefer the simplicity of some of the older technologies.

Little things about 'web2.0' annoy me; the way that peole use walls to have conversations, in a way that is half e-mail and half IM/chat room; The way that myspace has ( stylistically speaking ) become the new geocities, including all the annoying animate gif files and garish colour schemes; the way that some facebook pages take ages to load because people install every application that they see, like they're playing some deranged game of hungry hippos.

Web1.0 never annoyed me, it was just slower. people were nicer there.

Web 1 was like living in a beautiful country village, where you knew everyone, and those occasional strangers that you would meet while walking the lanes would stop and say hello. Web2.0 has been like moving to the big city, lots of bright lights and wonderful things to see, but nobody smiles outside of their little groups, and strangers are often chased away. gangs inhabit forums, moderators and admins have become bullies, people take their gift of anonymity and use it to start fights.

So if you find me reminiscing from time-to-time, it’s just because I miss the old days, where the internet didn't have communities, it was the community.

Be excellent to each other.

N

* to prevent my first flame-war, I don't hate the iPhone, I just feel its not for me.