What i thought I would do seeing as I have limited internet connection was to read the reader and write about my initial thoughts. Then, when I am able to get internet go and look at other peoples blogs and read it again to see if it brings up any other ideas.
My initial thought was, like a lot of others, has web 2.0 resulted in a lack of real face to face communication? This wasn't answered so much in the sense of looking at how people communicate physically but looked at how using web 2.0 benefits professional practice.
Up until I read the reader I did not understand what a 'wiki' was never mind know how to utilise it to help me. My understanding now is that Wikis are widely available for people to collaborate information, add their knowledge thoughts and/or feelings on specific topic. In many ways this seems like a great idea, enabling ideas to grow but I am left wondering how reliable this source is to get the hard facts? Information can be taken from outside, unknown, sources and be used within a Wiki to back up a discussion or a new idea 'materials can be reused and rearranged for a new purpose'. When referenced correctly this would be very useful but is this being regulated, are there terms that a user adding to a wiki has to follow? If Wikis are not necessarily spot on from the factual sense I still believe that wikis are a great way of creating new ideas or concepts that can be used in the workplace.
YouTube, another example of a web 2.0 platform, is a useful tool especially to me as a professional in the Arts field. There is such a diversity of dance styles and techniques available to watch via YouTube, it inspires new ideas feelings and styles. Personally, I love to watch works of choreography from range of people as it stimulates new movement ideas, makes me think about how I can structure works differently and use dynamics to create interest for an audience and how I can portray an idea clearly. I think it is really useful that a consumer can comment on videos too. This gives the opportunity to for feedback on what they thought of the video possibly give suggestions on improvement saying what they like or dislike. Additionally, it gives the producer the chance to explain their ideas behind the piece should the consumer ask.
From a media prospective Web 1.0 means the 'professional' can inform the consumer of what they know as the facts on a specific topic. However, when web 2.0 is introduced a consumer, possibly with no previous knowledge on the subject, may interact with the 'professional' raising a question or an idea that hadn't yet been thought of. This new idea together with the hard facts could create new and interesting material which may have never been raised without the aid of web 2.0. This constant chain means that all these new ideas, theories and concepts are constantly evolving, growing and changing bringing up more questions and ideas creating a cycle of evaluation.
Another question that has cropped up is that, yes people are free to look up, modify and interact with what they want, but do they really know what is out there and available to them? How can we promote the use of web 2.0 for our benefit and connect to people that we may never have with out it? There is the opportunity available to us to connect with potential colleagues or partners swell as possible clientele but how do we search for and how do they find us with such a wide network?
Overall, an understanding has to be made within the usage of web 2.0 platforms: The more one puts in, the more they get out.
No comments:
Post a Comment