“Web 2.0 can be defined as “the philosophy of mutually maximizing collective intelligence and added value for each participant by formalized and dynamic information sharing and creation.” Web 1.5 is where the information is conveyed differently by the industry practitioner, but the industry practitioner doesn’t understand that .5 of the “added value” comes from the commenter who disagrees with the post or adds more info than the post itself conveys.
Many of the blogwars going around, and not just the one involving Sellsius and BHB and 4Realz, are actually based on a growing separation involving the meaning of WEB 2.0. Just as every industry and activity since the beginning of time divides into 80% vs. 20% groups, so does the meaning of WEB 2.0. 80% will grab it as a new way to make money off of it. 20% will try to “get it” and apply it properly to the betterment of the industry as a whole. Such is life and no one can change that or stop the fights over it.
It really boils down to interpretation of “added value”. Is that value monetary? Some will erroneously assume so, as they think everything is about how to make more money. No one can change that. But the principle of WEB 2.0 is about the change in the way information is presented and BY WHOM it is presented. WEB 1.0 is a commercial – a one sided mirror. WEB 2.0 is an exchange of ideas where the general public is not the “reader” only, or the one “information is conveyed TO“, but the most important part of the information process and where the “added value” comes from.
If you argue your right to control information, as the information may not be conducive to your monetary objective, then you are at WEB 1.5, not WEB 2.0. It’s as simple as that. If you still want a one way mirror where you control the information in the comments, other than pure flaming deletions and spam deletions, and not transparent glass where more value comes from the anonymous commenter than the post writer, then you don’t “get” WEB 2.0.
Of course that’s my definition and how I understand it. Perhaps a Buyer’s Perspective is likely the best example of WEB 2.0 as far as the real estate industry is concerned, available on the internet today. ALL of the lesson learned is learned by the agents, and not the potential buyer of real estate. The potential buyer of real estate is the one doing the teaching, not the agent.
RCG is one of the best examples of WEB 2.0. Not because I am more transparent than many agents. Not because Rhonda conveys tons of good lending info to consumers. Not because Jillayne presents the underbelly of what is happening out there in her inimitable style of presenting that information. RCG is the best example of WEB 2.0 because of what readers learn from Tony Chase in the COMMENTS section of the Popcorn Ceiling Removal post. It is the best example of WEB 2.0 because of what we all learn from czb, and Biliruben, and Sniglet, and Polly and Adrianna and Jack and yes even Synthetik 🙂 to name just a few. They are WEB 2.0, not us. We cannot create WEB 2.0. We can only create an environment for WEB 2.0 to thrive in, so those commenting can create WEB 2.0 by the value added via their comments.
They, both the named and the anonymous commenters, are WEB 2.0. Not us.
Until agents and lenders and industry practitioners and vendors of services to agents, understand that “mutually maximizing collective intelligence and added value for each participant by formalized and dynamic information sharing and creation.” is NOT about what THEY SAY in the post itself, but what they learn from those commenting on what they say, in particular from those who add more to the info in the post and often those who disagree with the information in the post, there will be blogwars.
Change never happens without disruption, Rome wasn’t built in a day and rarely do more than 20% ever “get it” at all. Most will stop even trying to “get it” at the point where they find a way to make money off of it. That’s how innovative principles become “buzz” words only, because the buck stops there.