The Framing of Web 2.0

A reflection on “Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0” by Michael Zimmer and “Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On” by Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle

     As introductory material, Zimmer’s journal and the article by O’Reilly and Battelle give many differing opinions on the effects of Web 2.0.

     Through the initial stages in determining what Web 2.0 truly is, some opinions describe the concept to be innovative, life changing and democratized, where others use the words “evil” (Jarrett qtd. in Zimmer) and “dehumanizing” (O’Reilly and Battelle).

     Essentially, Web 2.0 is a platform for user-generated content on which anyone can contribute ideas, examples and information over the Internet with ease. Take this blog for example. Every character and comment that has been written on this page is contributive to the “collective intelligence” (O’Reilly and Battelle) of the Web 2.0 explosion.

     Bearing the above description in mind, one may ask: “What could be so ‘evil’ and ‘dehumanizing’ about Web 2.0?” This will be an ongoing theme for future blog posts.

     For the time being, the focus of this blog will be on the comparative symbolism of the workings of Web 2.0 to the physical frame in order to gain a clearer understanding of the definition of Web 2.0.

     Based on this week’s readings, Web 2.0 is often compared to and conceptualized as a frame.  “Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0” shares Trebor Scholz's ideas that Web 2.0 is a “framing device of professional elites that define what enters the public discourse about the impact of the Web on society.” The article also outlines Matthew Allen’s “four key components that makeup the conceptual frame of Web 2.0 – technology, economic, users and philosophy.”

     Now imagine an ordinary picture frame: a strong, but hollow structure that contains an image, whether it is text, art or a photograph. This image conveys shared information, ideas, identities, signs, stories and memories.

     A similar description could be given to Web 2.0, juxtaposing the word image with forum, website, thread, network, wiki, and so on.

     Just as some recent examples of Web 2.0 “promis(e) a framework for multiple layers of ‘augmented reality’” (O’Reilly and Battelle), a picture frame is the framework of simulated reality. An image is not reality, but a representation or perception of reality.

     Web 2.0, similar to an image in a frame, is a mode of communication that, as O’Reilly and Battelle conclude, “binds us together, gives us shared context, and ultimately shared identity.”

     Interestingly, the initial definition of Web 2.0 in this blog uses the metaphor of a platform on which user-generated content is built on. However, is Web 2.0 better described as a frame for user-generated content in which anyone can contribute ideas, examples and information?