So Web 2.0 finally goes mainstream....
kind of.
Time Magazine has named the Web-powered "You" as its coveted Person of the Year. In
the accompanying articles, the term Web 2.0 is used and there's talk of an Internet
"revolution". I think this is all great as a general recognition of the read/write Web -
but a few things in the article bothered me...
Yes, the Web is "a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before." It is about normal people contributing to media on a mass scale, thanks to web sites like MySpace, YouTube and Wikipedia. It is also about "an explosion of productivity and innovation" which is "just getting started, as millions of minds that would otherwise have drowned in obscurity get backhauled into the global intellectual economy."
All of this is what I refer to as the Social Web, or the read/write Web. Time magazine generally refers to it as Web 2.0 - which they archly note is what "Silicon Valley consultants call it".
This isn't a "revolution". It's an evolution of the Web - and I've written a hundred times about how Tim Berners-Lee always wanted the Web to be read/write, or editable. Sure Sir Tim probably never envisaged the Web he created 15 years ago as being the center of our electronic social lives in 2006, at least on the scale it's become. But he always wanted the Web to be a two-way medium - which is exactly what Time magazine is celebrating today. So no, it's not a revolution - the Web has evolved to be what it is over 15 years, including a few years of growing pains in the early part of this century known as the 'dot com' years.
I also somewhat resent the (usual) mainstream media condescension about blogs and social networks. Consider this passage from Time's cover article:
"Who are these people? Seriously, who actually sits down after a long day at work and says, I'm not going to watch Lost tonight. I'm going to turn on my computer and make a movie starring my pet iguana? I'm going to mash up 50 Cent's vocals with Queen's instrumentals? I'm going to blog about my state of mind or the state of the nation or the steak-frites at the new bistro down the street? Who has that time and that energy and that passion?
The answer is, you do."
Gee, thanks Time. I'll just go and blog about my state of mind now... I'll leave the real journalism to the professionals. And btw, what the heck are "steak-frites"?!
One final thing bothers me.... Time goes to great lengths to say that the Web is a democratizing force for 'the people'. Yet their view of the Web seems to be very centered on one place: Silicon Valley. I can understand this, to a degree. The Valley is where most of the action is, just like Hollywood is where it's at for movies.
But still, it seemed like the international people that did get mentioned were just clichéd bit players in this Web 2.0 world: the French rapper, the Pakistani Flickr user, an "irreverent Chinese blogger", "a mother in Baghdad with a videophone"... you get the picture. Meanwhile Silicon Valley bloggers Dave Winer and Om Malik got to explain what the new Web actually means and in another part of the Time coverage Web 2.0 was described as "an excess of democracy" (which, let's face it, is a very US-centric way to view the Web). I'm not sure what my point is here, other than I think the international players on the Web deserved wider and less clichéd coverage. But then I would say that.
Overall though, I can't wait to pick up a paper copy of this edition of Time magazine - I'm thrilled that the Web is their Person of the Year!
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2910
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Interesting!
Posted by: loveyoursmile | December 17, 2006 3:22 PM
It's not too surprising that Time has cast-off the Worldy nature of the web mentioning international users as merely a footnote. What Time fails to realize is the huge impact that the international users have on the Web. I'm living in Shanghai and I would have to say that the Web is far more prominent in the up and coming young generation in Shanghai than the same generation in the USA. The rather oppressive government has forced the youth to discover ever new venues of expression and community that through more traditional routes would be disapproved of or even punished.
If this year it is about You, I think next year it will be about everyone else. There is an explosion of international growth on the web, the US is kind of old news.
Posted by: Chris | December 17, 2006 5:58 PM
So, it really is all about me. I mean, us.
Posted by: Rhea | December 17, 2006 6:07 PM
I'm not sure if your question was rhetorical or not, but steak-frites are just as implied from the name: steak and fries. It was my lunch each day in Paris for the year that I lived there (and a terrific one at that). I wasn't aware it had become a trendy (?) food in the States, though.
You are correct in calling out Time for what they got wrong. In addition to that, the whole thing feels rather trivial when compared to what is going on in the world today. While the Web has certainly made me more productive and made it easier to find the things I'm interested in--indeed, it is both my hobby and my job--I'm not sure that "Web 2.0" has afforded any corporeal changes in my life. Certainly none will have an affect on the scale of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the war on terror, or global warming are or threaten to be.
It does appear a rather superfluous and immature selection.
Posted by: Ben | December 17, 2006 6:42 PM
on one hand i think Time did a cool thing, on the other hand Time might just be telling people what they want to hear, not saying it was the wrong choice, i am just saying it might have been the best pick to sell more copies of Time
Posted by: kincaid | December 17, 2006 7:18 PM
Obviously the extract from the TIME article shows where they're looking at. The evolution of grassroots journalism [if one considers daily state of mind] something China and other countries with firewalls patterned after it, fear. If unmoderated, readily available information/misinformation is detrimental/dangerous. I hope they see this though and not patronize it.
But still, it seemed like the international people that did get mentioned were just clichéd bit players in this Web 2.0 world.
- Couldn't agree more. They should read more pro-blogger sites, those who blog for content.
Steak-frites --> trans fats :)
In conclusion? The Web is for the people, by the people and of the people. :)
I really need to read the hard copy.
Posted by: ipanema | December 17, 2006 7:38 PM
At last... I've always waited for that moment in my life! I did it!! :)
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | December 17, 2006 7:49 PM
"Who are these people?"
Kinda makes me feel like a freak. Times have changed, Times! There are more people who prefer to do such things than watch TV and be dictated by the amount of commercials and things that get in the way of receiving pure content.
Posted by: AL | December 17, 2006 9:47 PM
On the other hand, remember that Time once made Hitler Man of the Year (in less politically correct times). http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html
Posted by: James Higgs | December 18, 2006 3:10 AM
One of the controversial winners of the past. 1979 saw Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini.
Chinese leader Hu Jintao Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and North Korea's Kim Jong-il were 2006 runners.
On Kim Jong-il ->Perhaps his Taepodong coordinates were wrong. He should have blogged about it. And who knows he could have won? :)
Posted by: ipanema | December 18, 2006 5:29 AM
Time's decision is a cop out. If you take the time to ponder the most dominant/influential leaders these days are the so called "bad guys" so maybe this time around it would not be so politically correct to select one of them.
As a group we are making significant strides...but I need to know the name of the one man who stands out...is head and shoulders above the rest of us...the concept of "we"..."us" being Person of the Year is nebulous...and forgettable....
Posted by: Adrian Keys | December 18, 2006 6:37 AM
That's TIMES choice, who could be ours? Should we open the floor for nominations? This could be fun. :)
Posted by: ipanema | December 18, 2006 7:00 AM
I think Time Magazine nailed it this time when the magazine named YOU as the "Person of the Year" for 2006. Time's Lev Grossman calls the democratization of the web nothing short of a revolution --- and I could not agree more.
The changes impact everyone from consumers who now have options to aggregate their information from any sources they want and to view it in any format they want --- to publishers that are learning what it means to adapt to this change in control. Looking back years from now, we'll remember 2006 as the year that forever changed the way information on the web was created, delivered, and received.
Posted by: Joe Lichtenberg | December 18, 2006 8:45 AM
So it really is all about me. I mean, us.
Posted by: Rhea | December 18, 2006 12:15 PM
With 50 million+ blogs (according to Technorati) out there, it's hard to pinpoint the BEST among them. Was is safer to say the collective 'YOU' than declare an individual? Or contributions from the each of the 50million+ counted? Perhaps that's what it is. Voice of the people? Perhaps.
So ranking, top 100s didn't count! It's all down to the 50million+. Everyone's a winner! :)
I believe that blogging is still in its infancy. Reading from all these well written tech blogs, I believe the best is yet to come.
Posted by: ipanema | December 18, 2006 1:35 PM
I actually don't think the YOU was a cop-out choice. Just as when they chose the PC as their person of the year, it's a good representation of the times.
I still don't think it's a revolution, however I do agree Joe that 2006 was the year in which it hit big - and so for that it'll be remembered.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | December 18, 2006 3:10 PM