Jason Calacanis has an interesting post on his blog where he officially defines web 3.0:
“Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform.”
I think highly of Jason and generally enjoy his posts, but I very much disagree with this one. And the reasons that I disagree are both scientific and engineering.
First, humans are not good at keeping up with computers. It is just not how our brains wired. A handful, even a thousand of people, can not efficiently and effectively leverage the vast web and myriad of web services that exist today.
More importantly, the whole latest social shift is towards natural, self-organizing systems like Digg and YouTube. The key thing about such system is that the “truth” in these systems is emergent, it is not imposed from the top or controlled. As a result self-organizing systems are always imperfect (think biology, sociology and economics!).
We are going to have to live with imperfections as a tradeoff for the speed of information.
Where I do see the possibility of human editing, and do agree with Jason, is for over longer term information. This concept is fairly well known, its called research and encyclopedia. In case of historical information human editing makes a lot of sense, because it is possible to research, digest and present the information in the best way.
But when it comes to news and things happening in real time, there is no way for humans to keep up. This job is left to Google 2.0 or its more successful rivals.
{ 10 trackbacks }
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree. And I wonder where Jason’s definition leaves other emerging web x.0 ideas such as the geoweb or semantic web.
alex-
http://defragcon.com/Blog/?p=138
agreed.
ejn
Jason sure goes off the deep end here. But one thing I think he gets right is the tightening up of the relationship humans have with technology. While I certainly don’t think “Web 3.0″ will be about Mahalo (what a joke!), I don’t think it will be about just the technology either. There will always have to be a healthy mix of how people interact with new technology, whether that’s “the semantic web” the “implicit web” or the “whatever web.”
Nate, I agree - I think one of the biggest innovations on the web in the past few years has been the breakdown of the wall between humans and technology. It’s introduced sociology and human psychology into the mix when developing web services, and I think that’s an important point that brings a real benefit.
Now that the wall has been broken down I think the next piece of interesting innovation will come from the combination of the next evolution of technology (semantic information? who knows) with further social input (implicit information? who knows).
Regardless, I get excited when I think of the potential of what can be. Take the ideas that arise when pairing semantic information with implicit attention… there are some really cool possibilities.
I think Jason’s right in so far as he suggests that people have more of a role to play in Web 3.0… or whatever we end up calling it.
Where I think he’s wrong, though, is in suggesting that those people will necessarily have to actively participate as his post suggests.
Instead, it will be the behaviour of people that enriches the experience still further for them and for others; what did they search for, what did they do with the result, how did they move from one resource on one site to a different resource on another, etc?
Battelle’s “Database of Intentions” is an intermediate step on the way to a Web of Intentions… and semantic technologies are right at the heart of it.
Wow you guys really take the bait! He’s just trying to get more attention for Mahalo, a very “web 1.0″ startup.
Hey Sally, regardless of how the conversation was initiated, there’s value for all of us in having conversations like this where somewhat abstract thoughts are discussed and fleshed out.
Here is a thought du jour from the Globe and Mail that I always liked and I think is relevant (or not relevant but who cares, it’s a good quote):
“Computer are fast, accurate and stupid. Human beings on the other hand, are slow sloppy and brilliant.”
I think I’m the only one around agreeing with Jason… But the fact is: take Digg’s frontpage right now and ask yourself how many of those so-wisely-chosen stories you find appealing. Then do the same with some (or any) of Digg’s, Reddit’s or whatever’s sections. The stories picked by algorithms push up to the surface what catches immediate response, and I guess the reason is that most people ‘digg’ them without even finishing reading them thoroughly, let alone making anything close to a sound judgment. The final effect is that most-dugg stories are simply the ones that produce a stronger first impression. Right now, ” Amazing, 5000 Pigeons In A Car ! ” hugely precedes ” Newsvine Acquired By MSNBC.com ” If I am logging on right now that is the picture of the world the algorithms would deliver to me. Good taste, sensible choices is something lacking in Web 2.0–something Web 2.0 simply cannot produce from its own machinery.
Nelson, there’s a lot of truth to what you say; however, the one element that’s missing in many of the algorithm-based recommendation sites that you list is the personalization element.
Mesh the algorithm-based recommendation against an implicit attention database (see point 1 on this post) and you can filter out the “Amazing, 5000 Pigeons in a Car” recommendation and get more of the content that’s meaningful to you.
Hello,
I also responded to the same blog you did in this post. I didn’t argue the technology, but I struggle more with the term ‘gifted individual’ in the definition and how that piece of the definition was framed.
You can find it here at: http://www.fly4change.wordpress.com
Thanks!