Talk:Debates in Digital Culture 2019/Web 2.0

This page is your Essay Discussion Page. It is where you will document planning, logistics, decision-making, delegation of tasks, reading annotations, and so on for your Collaborative Essay class project. Please think carefully about how you will manage and organise this page. Don't forget to keep logged in when contributing to the discussion, and sign each contrib with the four tildes (~) markup. This will form the basis for a good chunk of available marks for this project, so please do contribute regularly and consistently. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Week Starting with the 4th of March
We can put any ideas for headings/topics for Web 2.0 here to discuss easily JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

Would it be worthwhile talking about this history of the web and how Web 1.0 and 2.0 differ? JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC).


 * I think it would be highly beneficial to dedicate a subsection of the essay page to the history of Web 1.0 and its differences to the updated Web 2.0. This would allow the difference to be given a value, as in how much more effective has Web become as a result of Web 2.0? Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If if there are no complaints i would like to write on the differences between the two and show how the internet has evolved from that time JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC).


 * I have made a new subsection in the discussion page (see 'Web 1.0 Versus Web 2.0') for you to add any research you have done/will do on the topic, hope this helps Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Perfect ! This should be a useful way to keep much of the information clear JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC).


 * I definitely believe that our essay needs to go over the history of Web 2.0 in order to develop our main points, because they won't make sense until we explain how Web 2.0 came to be. I think this would be great in the introduction or beginning section of our essay to help build our work. However, I think we will have more to talk about in the main section of the essay if we discuss how things currently interact with Web 2.0. I have to refresh myself with the readings, but maybe this week we can all do some research to further develop what we wish to write about in the main body of the essay. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to just briefly talk about differences or go deep into details? Because in case you just want to mention the differences, I would write about some details regarding your examples (if it's ok for everyone). RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 13:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * we could both work together both doing the differences and then go into the details, if we both did that it would probably bulk up the essay and help make it read better JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 09:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Alright, I'll try to collect everything during the weekend. RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There are useful reading at week 1 and 7 we could start with.RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys, going to have a listen back to the podcast and try and find some reading from there, will let you all know how I get on! BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello guys, Im not sure if this will be helpful but it is the wikipedia page for web 2.0, I think it shows some different sub-topics which may be useful for considering what could go in the essay; https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Web_2.0_and_Emerging_Learning_Technologies/Learning_Theory Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 10:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking about pointing out the examples of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. In this case, people can be more related to what we are talking about. Do you guys think the examples should be included briefly or being elaborated more? Like Youtube, it is definitely an example of Web 2.0 and perhaps we can talk something about the development of it. Although it is included in Web 2.0, but the development of this web is inspiring. I remember the reading--"The video bubble" mentioned a lot on that. Do you guys think this is out of topic or worth exploring? Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding to the example I have mentioned above, it reminds me of the business model that Youtube has adopted gradually. I think that is common in most of the Web 2.0. I am thinking if we can explain the business side of Web 2.0. Let's say, treating it as a seperate topic? It is also included in the reading. Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea, but we have to think about the word limit, too, so I think examples are important but don't write too long sentences. I think we should discuss first what we really want to talk about, then figure out the details later. Do we want to talk only about the differences or write about something else (like Web 3.0 or whatever)? Once we have this, we could brainstorm about the details. RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right, I guess that depends on how much content we have about every section, we could explore examples and so on. What was the word limit for this essay?--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 10:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's 3000 words. I think the introduction and conclusion could be around 300-300 words, so the body supposed to be 2400 words (+/-) RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 11:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that examples are important evidence to back up the subject we are talking about. However, I also think we need to make sure we look into the interaction between this technology and people, as many of the concepts we have learned throughout this course discuss the relationship people have with this technology. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I forgot about the word limit. So do you guys agree to put the examples in existing parts instead of bring them up with a separate topic? Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I believe that the topics discussed in your annotated bibliography are important to talk about. I believe the history of Web 2.0 and how it came to be are important, however since this is a Digital Media and Culture course I believe we need to have our primary focus be on the relationship people have with Web 2.0. I believe a helpful setup of the essay could be: This is a rough idea of what the structure could be like, any feedback would definitely be helpful in further developing our overall structure of the essay. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * History of Web 2.0 and how it came to be
 * Topics such as transmedia practices, always-on, and/or media convergence
 * A possible transition to Web 3.0


 * I think the structure you have proposed could really work with our essay. Starting by an introduction of the events leading to the emergence of Web 2.0, as the dotcom crash, the transition from Web 1.0 and so on could be a good way to start. Then as you said, the second part could be related to the characteristics and practices involved in Web 2.0. As for the place I am not sure either, someone created a section for the Essay Question so I am still unsure whether to discuss the essay's structure here or on that one, does anybody know?--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I also agree that your proposed structure can be a feasible one, let's just set these heading and start to work on the content inside. But for the second part Topics such as transmedia practices, always-on, and/or media convergence, I think we can change it in to a heading of  Impact of Web 2.0 and below we can start the topic on transmedia practices, always-on, and/or media convergence, after all, these topics are all the impact after web2.0 comes out. Web9999 (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , definitely! It would be better to have a more general title in which we can include all of the characteristics that define the developments of Web 2.0. There is another section down below about the "Essay Question" so I do not know whether it's best to discuss the organisation of the titles down there or here. I do not really mind.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely think that a more generalized name would help to cover several different topics related to the relationship between people and Web 2.0. I think that the title of  Impact of Web 2.0 is great! Could we divide this into two sections? My thoughts for the body of the essay is that we should talk about the history of Web 2.0, two different subjects in two different paragraphs about the interaction people have through Web 2.0, and then the possible transition to Web 3.0. I will look more into the possible subjects for those middle two paragraphs. If anyone has different thoughts about the subject or setup of this essay let me know!MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * For the youtube part, I think that we could do a brief introduction of the business model but somehow as @MarketingMaine said, we should focus more on the relationship of the web and the people, however, I also agree that Youtube is a great choice, as youtube business model runs by the audiences itself posting video online. And to dig deeper we can talk about how consumers become producers after the born of Web2.0, using Youtube as an example. Web9999 (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think people are getting confused with what section we should use to start organizing the subjects we are going to focus on. My idea is that since this section is about topics/subjects to consider, it can be dedicated as a place where people can throw out their ideas but not everything here will end up in the essay. I believe that the Essay Question section should be where the structure of the essay should be discussed, so the important information can be filtered from this section to a place where it is easier to find. Does anyone agree/disagree? MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Week Starting with the 11th of March
Just been catching up with the discussion today, some really great stuff in there! To weigh in on the previous discussions regarding the topics which we should focus on I'd mostly agree with what has been said before in that we should have a history of Web 2.0 and a focus on what web 2.0 is and what it actually does. I think a mention towards web 3.0 at the end would be a good thing but I don't think it's something that we should focus too much on, maybe just a breif mention and a link to another wiki page (if there even is one)? Also apologies for not being more active on here over the last week, I was completing an assignment for a different module. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Good idea with suggesting not to focus too much on Web 3.0, I agree with your point. Reason being, our topic is Web 2.0 so it is good to mention topics that are closely related to this but we will need to be careful not to drift too far from Web 2.0. There is one page I found which briefly discusses Web 3.0 called Semantic Web, However, Im still trying to work out how to link it in. Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thinking about the topics mentioned in the discussion, I thought that maybe it would be worth mentioning the issues regarding the distinction between the different versions of the Web. By this I mean how the transition is not something radical, and how there is a remediation of the content, allowing continuity in these developments. Should this be part of the "Web 1.0 Versus Web 2.0" section or mentioned as part of the general introduction? I am not sure which section could it be added to.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

'''Hi guys I think I might have some misunderstanding on the essay, are we now doing on the Topics that we have separated into small parts, or the essay, as in this area we are taking about 3 different sub topics which are the web1.0 vs web 2.0, web and the culture, but below in the ESSAY topic we are talking about web1.0 vs web 2.0 (which is the same） but the second item will be Impact of Web2.0 , it is a more general discussion as IMPACT can be other than the culture. So what I am thinking is , we should now confirm the TOPICS and stick into that to do research, and i apologies for changing the main essay topics as I have misunderstand whats going on in this page, because I read the ESSAY part and thought we could work on the IMPACTS but afterall, with deep consideration and as some of you have said, culture is the main part of this course so I guess we should still stick back into culture. How do you think?''' Web9999 (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Impacts are also worth mentioning and perhaps we can include it in the "Web 2.0 and Culture" part? I think the impact of Web 2.0 has something to do with the culture. So the main topics can still stick to culture. So they can be: The 3rd topic can still remain the focus on Web 2.0 as the transition of Web 3.0 is based on the death of Web 2.0. Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0,
 * Web 2.0 and Culture,
 * The death of 2.0 and a possible transition Web 3.0


 * Yeah, I agree that it is a little bit confusing. But I think that both "Web 2.0 and Culture" and "The impact of Web 2.0" are referring to a similar thing. I cannot find a section for "The impact of Web 2.0" in the discussion page, so I don't know what is the difference between the two. But I think that 's division, that was also mentioned in the "Essay Question" section down below could a good structure for our essay. Then, we can include different topics within the sections of it.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that discussing the impacts are important as well, however I do not believe we should devote a section to just Positive Impacts & Negative Impacts of Web 2.0 because it would be overlapping multiple concepts and might be confusing. Maybe a way around this is to discuss important topics, for example participatory culture and its emergence from Web 2.0, and in that section talk about the positive and negative impacts its made on society. That way, the impacts support its importance in society without discussing multiple topics. Let me know what you think of that though and we can definitely figure something out. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Week Starting with the 18th of March
Hi, 1. I just wrote something for the collective intelligence subsection of the book. It is only a first draft and obviously I encourage anyone to edit, change, add information or delete things about it. It is still hard to see what to add and what not to add, but I think that as people start writing it will be easier to decide what parts are worth mentioning. 2. Secondly, depending on how many words the sections end up having, I think that it could be interesting to discuss remediation or at least mention the fact that this discourse of versions is not a radical change, but a modification of the ways in which the content is shared. Maybe it could be mentioned as part of the introduction?--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 00:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Lucia, I just went through the writing and you make very interesting points about the topic and the sources are well used. Plus, I think that amount of words you wrote is enough, just the references are missing at the end. Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for reading it! Yes, definitely will add the sources and references. I was just waiting because depending on what other people write I might have to change some bits--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there ! what are we doing for an introduction to the wikibook ? I don't think it has to be a big introduction I just think something has to be there, JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC).
 * I think we should write the Intro and Conclusion when everyone is finished with their topics, so we can describe the essay more accurately. RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea, that will mean that we know exactly what to cover in each of them JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

So, as you can tell I changed the section a little bit so that it would be easier to find each topic and the comments of other contributors without getting lost. and I agreed that the discussion on the various versions of the web and how this is not a radical shift but a remediation of the content into new forms could be an interesting topic to write on. I was wondering what you guys think about this. Also, some people haven't been posting lately and I don't know what topics are they planning to write about, so maybe this could be one of those?--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Week Starting with the 25th of March
Do we need to do a conclusion to the whole thing or is it just a small short introduction in order to introduce the piece as a whole ? Just thinking we should try and wrap it up due to it being due in 3 days JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC).
 * I also have had this question playing on my mind because it is an essay we are writing, after all. However, a conclusion would make sense mainly if we have a line of argument/thesis for the essay, rather than just it being exploratory. If we only aim to explore the concept of 'Web 2.0', rather than take a critical stance on it, we would not really have anything to conclude besides our findings? Or would we mainly conclude what we have learned about the concept since beginning our research into it? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. We will know more about how it is all going to come together once all the main bodies are in place. Any more thoughts? - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * hi, I think you both raise some good points regarding the conclusion. I agree that the inclusion of a conclusion will largely depend on the content of the essay as a whole but personally I would lean away from it as we are not really answering a question about Web 2.0 and so do not really have anything to conclude.  I think if we try and get a solid first draft finished of the three main sections by Wednesday/Thursday morning by the latest we could better discuss the relevance of a conclusion in our essay then as we will have a better idea of the essay as a whole and if we decide we don't need one then the extra words could be used in sections that may need it.  Would like to hear what others think though as we should make this decision as a group. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the conclusion can be thought about once the sections are nearly finished. I think that it could be part of the last section on Web 3.0, as this can lead back to the points we made throughout the essay.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys, silly question, I know the essay is due on Friday but is it due in at 12pm or is it a different time that it is due? Thanks in advance. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I read that it is 12 noon, just like the other exercises we have had up to now. However, I would recommend to finish it as soon as possible, or at least adding the information. I have seminars on Friday morning so I won't have much time to check things out then--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for clarifying. I agree we should try and finish as soon as possible, I have been adding to the essay page and hope to finish tomorrow as I also have uni on Friday mornings and have a family engagement which will take up most of tomorrow evening and so I would like us to be in a solid place with the essay by that point.  Realistically if we all contribute evenly we would only need to write something like 250 words each so hopefully everyone can put their notes down soon. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

URGENT: Hello everyone, I know the deadline is fast approaching so I decided to quickly place in a 'draft' of an introduction, please make additions to it and correct anything you feel isn't appropriate. As you'll notice I have sort of done this myself: the text in the square brackets is the beginning of a very formal and self referential section of an introduction many of us would recognise from our own critical essay. However, as this is not a standard critical essay I have decided to wall it off until we agree it is/is not necessary. The Murugesan definition is also something quick and perhaps not the best way to define what Web 2.0 is/was, so if anyone has anything to hand add it in. I feel like I will be very active in the coming few hours so I should respond quickly to anything that is posted either below or on the Book page, thanks again everyone! - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for contributing with a strong introduction. With regards from the definition from Murugesan I don't think there is any problem with stating that definition is but one of many definitions and interpretations of Web 2.0 and that through the course of our essay a clear understasnding of Web 2.0 will emerge as we discuss it with regard to it's impact on society and culture and how it differs from Web 1.0.  Also I personally think that the section you have bracketed off as serious would be useful in the essay as it would help any potential readers of this wikibook understand what the intention of this page is.  Hope this is helpful, will be useful to see what the wider group thinks also. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the speedy response, its good to see. I understand that it is one interpretation, so I have just amended it to read that "one way of understanding what Web 2.0 is", perhaps this is more appropriate? And again thanks for the feedback on the bracketed section, I do think it would be useful to include so after a few more responses today I will be happy to integrate it fully into the introduction, thanks again you've been a big help! - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * hey, the introduction sounds good! I was thinking that perhaps we could briefly mention the emergence of Web 2.0, like just say that it happened after the dot com crash and maybe that O'Reilly was the one popularising the term?--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I read it again and it looks fine, maybe there is no need for what I said.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would like to replace the Murugesan quote about Web 2.0 with a more relevant quote from O'Reilly please fell free to do so! I haven't read any of O'Reilly's work, but I know that what you say is true, he was the scholar that spearheaded the term 'Web 2.0' so it would definitely be more fitting if we used his quote instead - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 17:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for putting an introduction in, reading over it it sounds great with what you and others have written in, is there anything anyone would like me to add to it or do you believe that it is fine as is ?JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 19:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I put an image into the criticisms of Web 2.0 section of the essay and want to edit it down so it is a bit smaller but can't figure out how to or if this is possible. Is anyone able to explain how or able to do it? Thanks. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Web 1.0 Versus Web 2.0
@amybaird2: Hi guys, if yous think it is a good idea I thought talking a bit more in depth about Oliver's point on how the internet is evolving would be interesting. Considering the move forward from 2.0 into a possible 3.0 already being present as mobile devices and computers are being merged together.
 * I'll focus on the transition from 1.0 to 2.0 if you want to perhaps do the idea of how 2.0 is changing into a new internet-sphere, could be interesting to show how the internet has changed fully since its inception JackLeslie1999 (discuss •
 * Yes! Sounds like a great idea I will look into the transition into a possible 3.0 and how the internet has grown since the start of web 2.0. If everyone else thinks that is alright as well. 09:30, 12th March 2019 (UTC).

contribs) 17:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC). Hi guys, should we think more subheadings for different category for Web 2.0 such as the advantage, disadvantage, features and more to make our essay more user-friendly and easily read? For comparing wed 1.0 to web 2.0, I think we could also make a chart showing the evolvement of the application such as the personal website in the past had turned into blogging or social media accounts. Web9999 (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a very good idea, we could start off the section with a general summary of both web 1.0 and web 2.0 and then have different subsections fully exploring these differences. As you said, doing this would help make the wiki-book look more user friendly and make it look better JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 09:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC).

JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC).

Web 1.0 (“Read only web” - Berners-Lee) gave the chance to find information (search and read), user interaction or content contribution were not common. That was ideal to website owners as they were able to establish an online presence and it was a good way to inform users about anything (Getting, 2007 ). Web 1.0 was a simple platform for users to browse, but Web 2.0 (“Read-write” - Barners-Lee) made it possible for them to create something. With the appearance of social media (such as MySpace, Facebook) or video sharing websites (like YouTube) or blogs that rely on users submissions, users can interact with each other, edit their own page, share their stories with pictures and videos in a user-generated virtual community. "[...] move from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from publishing to participation, from web content as the outcome of large up-front investment to an ongoing and interactive process, and from content management systems to links based on tagging, or what is known as folksonomy.” (Flew, 2008) . RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I shall start writing my part of this during this week, i haven't had the time to do so due to other subjects, are there any specific things you would like me to cover in my half of the subheading or anything you want me to continue on from your half ? JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
 * That's okay, I think everyone was busy so far with other assignments and we still have time. It's up to you, the only thing I would recommend to find information that connects to my paragraphs but includes something new. So your paragraphs and my sentences are about one idea. I'll be available tonight after 11pm should you have any other questions. RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, ill try and link things whilst showing other ideas as well then JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
 * I have written my part on the wiki book if you could read over it and see if it is okay then that would be great, also i have linked some pages on it but i don't know if i have done it correctly so if you could have a look for me that would be great thanks JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC).
 * I have to work today, but tomorrow morning I'll check everything and we can synchronise our paragraphs. RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, so I read your lines and I think everything is covered now in our topic. The links are fine, I checked all of them. We should wait until the rest of the topics are done and check again the number of the words. Also once the other topics are done, we can connect our topic to the following one. RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * perfect i agree everything seems to be covered, you are right we can now wait until the next stage is done JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

I found this image on Wiki commons and believe it could be useful to include in the wikibooks page as it shows many key words related to Web 2.0, it could possibly be used to show differences between 1.0 and 2.0 as well as specific notions for 2.0 JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC).

Should we perhaps focus only on the main differences or will we keep a broad look on the differences between 1.0 and 2.0 as both have their own advantages and disadvantages JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 11:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC).
 * I think you should highlight the benefits and drawbacks of each, it would make your research more critical. Obviously, you would need to cite sources that bolster your claim, for example, that Web 1.0 was not as easy to interact with - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * good idea, I'm sure the annotated bibliography source has points which back up the ideas i have so ill be sure to back my points up with that JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC).

Hi, the section looks fine however you mention Berners-Lee twice in brackets '(“Read only web” - Berners-Lee)' Is that a reference? Just checking to make sure--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was also concerned as I couldn't find a reference for this and I think it definitely needs one as it is stating important information that must have come from somewhere. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks a lot for noticing this. The reference was there, but after the next sentence. I put it right after the brackets so it should be fine. In case you still find sometinh wrong, please feel free to correct it (I have classes till noon, not sure if I can check it once more.) Thank you once more! RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 08:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Web 2.0 and Culture
This is a subsection dedicated of study/research into ways in which Web 2.0 interacts with the culture of our society (Technological vs Cultural Determinism?) If anyone has anything to add here after myself feel free to do so. I just believe that it is important to reference the relationship of culture and Web 2.0, being in Web 2.0's nature to be shaped by collective intelligence of those who live in our society and experience our culture. Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Will we put the subheadings under the main concepts tab in the wikibook screen ? JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I imagine that will be the case, looking at the other groups' discussion page has made me feel we should coordinate a clearer layout of who is doing what Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe that we can really narrow down this section into two parts. I believe one main topic could be participatory culture, as Web 2.0 made this possible. This could include information such as collaborative learning, interactivity, and social networking. As for the second main section I am still researching, but I think it'll probably revolve around creating media compared to consuming media and how that has changed with the rise of Web 2.0. If anyone has feedback or suggestions let me know. If not be on the lookout for the annotated bibliographies on readings regarding this topic as I will be posting a few in the next couple of days. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we could add transmedia practices into the first section as well, as it is a big part of the way in which Web 2.0 tries to keep the users engaged with the content. Also, the notion of collective intelligence that Oliver has mentioned fits in with the consequences of this participation. However, I don't know if the second part would overlap the "Web 1.0 versus Web 2.0" section, I guess it depends on how we structure it.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess that could be similar to the differences between Web 1.0 and 2.0. I will look into that more and see if there is a way to structure that differently in order to make sure we do not repeat things. If it does seem to overlap too much than we can find something else to focus on. On the Book tab, someone wrote about the negative and positive impacts of Web 2.0. That might be something to expand on as well, or possibly integrate throughout the Web 2.0 and Culture section when discussing different theories. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am really interested in working on the participatory culture, would I be able to help co-write a subsection of the essay that focuses on this concept. There are many different things that we have looked at in the workshops, through reading and through the podcasts that could be referenced as part of participatory culture, e.g. second screens and active media consumption. If you have any immediate ideas that would be great, as I do have a lot of research I need to do to help my contribution to the pages - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely think we could work on this together and pool the information we come up. There are a lot of different directions we could take this in so lets definitely discuss our ideas and keep a discussion going so we do not venture away from the main point of this section! MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we add the topic of collective intelligence under the participatory culture section? Or could that be another section for the "Web 2.0 and Culture" topic? As all the topics are intertwined i am not sure of how to divide this.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely think that collective intelligence and participatory culture are the two largest cultural changes that occurred because of Web 2.0. I Definitely think that we could use this section to discuss those two subjects to back up the idea that Web 2.0 really did influence culture. I have been researching participatory culture and can look into collective intelligence as well. Does anyone disagree with this? If so lets discuss this more so we can get started writing. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, I think that for now these aspects really explain the cultural effect that Web 2.0 has had. I was thinking that it could be interesting to add or at least mention the political side that these notions imply. Writing about how making is political. Since I am still unsure about whether we are going to have too many words or not enough, I was thinking that maybe we could mention it in the introduction of the section, or else in the end of the essay as part of the conclusion. What do you guys think?--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe talking about how politics are involved would be a great example, as it is a huge part of why people participate online which only became available with the tools from Web 2.0. Depending on the word count, I think this could be a valuable subject to bring up. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 02:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to introduce in a few sentences the overall relationship between society and Web 2.0. This could help to lead up into the smaller topics of participatory culture and collective intelligence. Both these topics are essential in the relationship between Web 2.0 technology and society, and showing that out of the many factors these two are important to focus on would be a great way to introduce the topics in more detail. Does anyone agree/disagree? MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely think that this is a good idea. Having an introductory passage will help us make our points clearer as well as making every section flow in the general line of the essay.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

'''Hi, I have been checking the table of contributors below and realised that some of the people saying that they would work on this section have not said what they were actually working on. Please if you have any ideas or you have been researching on something specifically mention it here so that we can have an idea of how many areas and words we are going to have.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)'''

Web 2.0: the impact on businesses and communication
Did you add the section on the Book page titled Web 2.0 in the Working Environment? I was curious what you were thinking of adding to this section, as I don't remember reading anything on the discussion page regarding this topic. I just want to make sure that I do not add information you wish to add to this section. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, yeah I did add to this section as I was going to talk about education but realised someone already is but the reading I found for that also discusses the work place. Do you think this topic will be okay? I am mainly discussing how Web 2.0 developed the work place, for everyone involved. I only have three readings so far, was planning on writing around 300/400 words, we could work on it together if you have not started a topic already? Im mainly talking about how web 2.0 opened up online communication for customers and employees which then changed the work environment. Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I am now considering changing this to The impact of Web 2.0 in business communication. Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely think this is important! I think maybe this information could go in the Participatory culture section, as its about participating online through the work place. So instead of making into its own section I would add it into Participatory culture and use it as an example. You could probably get away with a paragraph on this. I almost feel like it could go in the Education section, and change that to School and Work or something along those lines. What do you think?MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I discuss both consumers and producers so I'm not completely sure where it should go. I think participatory culture may fit better so I will put it there, should I put a sub heading in bold? Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I would add a heading to it, smaller than Participatory Culture and Collective Intelligence. And i'm sure it'll work out, i'm going to spend several hours on it tonight and all day tomorrow so i'll let you know and edit things to be more cohesive! Hope that helps!MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi I was just going through the essay. I realised that this section has a lot of words compared to others and I don't know if it would be able to summarise it a little bit or write things a different way to shorten it. It feels bad to say because the information its really good but we are already over the word limit and some things haven't been explained yet in the participatory culture section I believe.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm currently going through each section to make sure wording makes sense. I also went through the references to make sure they didn't clash. I think thats alright, I wanted to add more to participatory culture but everyone else added stuff so I wasn't sure if there was room. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 00:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Participatory Culture
I have added this subsection to keep the notes more distinct in case things become to confusing to look at - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this section will be super helpful, there is a ton of information around Web 2.0 and Participatory Culture so I think this section will help keep everything organized. Maybe the next day or so we can gather information and put it here if that works for you? MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, what aspects were you guys thinking of discussing in this section? So I have an idea of what to look for. Oliver mentioned the use of second screens which is an important point to make. I was thinking that we could also write about Jenkins' and his explanations about transmedia practices as it aims to engage the users?--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 11:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we could definitely talk about the use of second screens, and transmedia practices. Also, I think always-on culture is important as well. I believe this shows the full extend of how much people participate online. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I plan on writing up my section for Participatory Culture by Tuesday latest. I think for those of us writing about Participatory culture we can each write a paragraph or two. I definitely would like to talk about Always-on culture and its role in Web 2.0, does that work with everyone? I can also do an overall introduction to participatory culture and its role in Web 2.0 if that would be helpful. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I have said before I do wish to help in this section so I will wait until you have posted your contribution to the subsection and then follow up on some points about user-generated content and the changes to popular online and offline culture derived from the act of participating. If you plan on doing a small intro I could potentially give you some feedback on it and provide some additions if I may? That being said I do have faith that you will have a strong introduction, your research thus far has been very detailed and extensive! - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I will have my part done by Tuesday latest. I will try to write the introduction, and that should help people to format their writing after that. Any information that you think should be added let me know and we can work something out. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfect! I will just aim to continue your part of the subsection but do so without covering the same points, as I am now happy to include reference to my latest piece of research with an article giving a critical view of participatory culture and the threat to the democracy of the online community. If you haven't already, I would recommend giving it a read just to offer a different perspective. You should be able to find the link to the article under the Cammaerts, B. (2008) section. Hope all is going well! - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)



Hey guys, thought I would place this here as reference for its potential inclusion the participatory subsection. I noticed others are including photos to help illustrate their discussion and though including a photo of Henry Jenkins would be good for participatory culture because of his extensive work into the topic. If anyone has any other photos to share please do put them here, I'm sure Greg would like to see further engagement with Wiki Commons. - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, adding pictures can make the essay look better. has created a section in which we can add the photos we add, so maybe we could keep adding them there if we find more!--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

So I wrote an overall introduction for Web 2.0 and Culture, than an introduction to Participatory Culture. I put these 3 examples of participatory culture in the introduction which I am writing paragraphs on nowAlways-On Culture, Civic Engagement, and Education. I feel like these examples can be used to back up the impact of participatory culture and how Web 2.0 affected that. If I should add/subtract/change these three points let me know ASAP because I will be writing as much as I can today. Please add/edit anything I write, I am a little worried because not everyone has written their part, so I am going to write what I can and others can add or edit as we go. I know some of you also had research specific topics such as education, so I will write something about it but please do with it what you like. I do not want people to feel like they cannot write because I already put something there! At this point I figured its better if we write more and edit after than not have enough and rush last minute. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * don't worry! Those points sound perfect, and yes, just add it as soon as you have the paragraphs written. I added more words to my part of collective intelligence because I was not sure about whether how many words other people would add, but obviously if we have too many anyone can edit my part as well. I'm just probably not going to be available on Friday and I thought it would be best to write too much than not enough.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense! Yes add what you can, I might write the overall essay introduction since nobody has started on that either. I also think the essay is due at noon on Friday, but I could be wrong i'll look. But I think the more thats written the easier it'll be later on. Keep up the good work and thanks for the feedback! MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey again, just gave it a read over and I am happy with what you have done, I have just added the photo of Henry Jenkins to the side of the intro, as it is all I know to do at the current time. As for the points of 'participatory culture' that you have flagged up so far (Always-On Culture, Civic Engagement and Education) I am unsure where I would place any of the research I have done under there, as I have been more interested with the new everyday prosumer and evolving internet culture with the dawn of Web 2.0 services and web pages. So far I can only really contribute to this aspect of the participatory culture, and will do so if I may? Any problems just let me know - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am really happy as well with what you have written but the essay is over 3200 words now and we still have sections to complete, try to summarize a little bit more to give some space to what is missing please. Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I have just gone through my contribution and stripped it down to the bare minimum to free up some words, I do apologise for forgetting that this essay does have a word limit. To further this, I can take away parts of the introduction to the essay, because it is clearly very long winded and can be more precise, therefore freeing up more words for other sections. Hope this has helped! - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I took around 250 words from my section so that other people can add more stuff. I will now go over the sections and try to polish and summarise some things if I see the content is repeated.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I finished writing my part and the word count I think is alright now, you think we should add a conclusion part? I think that's the only thing that is missing in the essay.   Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 00:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I think that you said you were writing about Always on, civic engagement and so on. Since we had too many words I decided to summarise my part so that it is 230 words. There was a part of my bit that I thought would work better in civic engagement so I just copied and pasted it there. Obviously if you don't need the information you can just delete it, it is just in case it fits in with the content you had researched.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to look through everything we have right now and see which sections need more information. I think Participatory culture might need some more so i'll add whatever is needed. And yes thank you for adding info to Civic Engagement I think thats helpful! I am kinda worried though since Participatory Culture has way more information than Collective Intelligence. I'm not sure if we should just make Collective Intelligence a part of Participatory culture or if we should try to move it around, or just make participatory culture a sub topic. I'm not sure any suggestions? MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 19:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah sorry, I took words off the section because we were already over the word limit and people had started writing different sections. In my opinion, we could make "Participatory Culture," "Collective Intelligence," "Education" and "Business Communication" different subsections of "Web 2.0 and culture" and then have the other three (Always on, prosumer and civic engagement) sections within the participatory culture bit. Mainly because I think that both Education and Business Communication are related to both participatory culture and collective intelligence as well as other notions.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 00:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Could we combine the business and education part into one section, like Web 2.0's Impact in Education and Business?MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 00:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the new structure looks much better, thank you for that! Much clearer--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 01:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I will go through everything tomorrow one more time in the morning. It's looking pretty good though so hopefully it meets expectations! We are about 100 words over but I figured that wouldn't be a big deal it says to be around 3000 words so we should be good as long as nobody adds anything big tomorrow. Can't imagine someone would be that last minute though... MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Collective Intelligence
I think that this section along with Participatory Culture would be a few paragraphs to fill up the body in the essay to describe the impact that Web 2.0 has on culture. I also think it is important to show how culture has impact Web 2.0 and changed it to meet people's needs. Maybe this is something we can discuss and use sources to back up in the essay. Collective Intelligence wasn't really important before Web 2.0, and i'd say the way that we are writing this essay is proof that collective intelligence is important to culture and that it is becoming more and more important in society. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many resources that Greg provided that could be useful to back up our points. I will also try to work on this, or at least provide some information regarding the sources connected to the topic. I don't know if this notion could be linked to the civic web and the political side that the emergence of Web 2.0, or if that could be another concept to explain. It is also a matter of how much we have on each section, so I will try to start writing things for the main book page as soon as possible.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, before I started writing actual paragraphs I wanted to share some of the ideas I have recollected throughout my readings: Some of the ideas can also be part of the participatory culture, therefore I will try not to overlap on that too much. If you have any ideas, or if you consider any of these not to be relevant for the section please let me know. I am really bad at organising my ideas.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lanier, J. (2011) encourages a humanistic approach to emphasise the importance of the participation of individuals online. The use of a personal voice and visibility are encouraged by the author.
 * Shirky, C. (2011) the transition from a passive to an interactive behavior allows the creation of platforms such as Wikipedia in which the users cooperate. 2. “People want to do something to make the world a better place” (17), voluntary creation of content. 3. Cognitive surplus can be communical and/or civic.
 * Rheingold, H. (2002) The actions of the users depend on the competing notions of self-interest and public goods.
 * O’Reilly (2005) The collective intelligence and importance of the users as co-workers is mentioned.
 * Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., & Kelly, K. (2009)'. The idea of 'Folksonomy,' “people-led practice of knowledge” (Lister et al. 2009, 206).
 * Dahlgren, P., (2014) how Web 2.0 can enhance the users' engagement on politics. '
 * Gauntlett (2018) social media as a metaphor for collective activity that impacts on people’s lives, therefore it has political value. Creativity is a political act.
 * Goodwin and Jasper (eds.) (2015) How the internet can be a democratic space in which users participate and start social movements.
 * Castells (2015) the intertwined on- and offline worlds make online activism part of both. Online social movements and civic participation can be understood as an extension of the actions being taken in real life.
 * I think those are all things we could talk about in this section! Some of them overlap Collective Intelligence and Participatory Culture, but ultimately these two things go together anyways. You need a participatory culture in order to create collective intelligence. I think that there will be a good amount of information to support these sub topics and create an understanding of the important role Web 2.0 plays in peoples lives and how people are changing Web 2.0 to meet their needs. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for the feedback. I wrote some stuff on the topic, but I will modify it as soon as other people write their bits. Since most of the topics are related I might have to delete some things, but it is alright. If you have any information you would like to add, go for it--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The section you wrote on collective intelligence was very well written. I believe that the sources you used definitely enhanced the points. I think that the amount of information given is adequate, as we want to make sure we save enough words for other section. And if there is repeating information we can go back through it at a later date and change it. Great work! MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I will add a little paragraph on the negative side of smart mobs and the aggregation of content to this section. If I see that we don't have enough words and other contributors start adding up more info we can delete it. And if anyone has any information they would like to add to the part, feel free to do so. Also, I was wondering if the political impact that creating on Web 2.0 is going to be mentioned in any of the other sections, if not maybe we could add another section, or I could briefly discuss it in this part as well? If you read this let me know what you think--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely think it is important to talk about how Web 2.0 isn't always positive to society. I think this would be a helpful addition for sure. I think this would probably be a good place to talk about the political impact as well, seeing as it relates mostly with the topic of Web 2.0 and Culture. I think it could probably go in the Participatory section, as that is related to participation on and offline. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Role of the Web in Education
REVISION: Not a main topic anymore, can be used as an example MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 19:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to know what you guys think if I make a section on the essay about how the Web impacts education. How schools and universities are implementing technologies in the teaching and learning area and what benefits come with it. How students are manipulating this material to engage and attract themselves more with the subjects they are studying. Let me know if you have any ideas on how to organize. Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this could be a great example of some concepts we have discussed in the seminars. I think maybe linking this with a theory, most likely one in the Web 2.0 and Culture section, it could show how Web 2.0 has changed they way people interact in the real world which includes education. However, I do feel like as its own topic it kind of strays away from our main train of thought. So maybe do some research on why Web 2.0 is changing our culture and how we interact with information and engage with it and each other, then use education as an example of these changes. Hope that is helpful feedback! MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a good idea. Maybe it could be related to the civic web and how the participatory culture is extending the political dimension of the Web. However, I agree with, I think that it would be better as a subsection to the "Web 2.0 and culture" bit, rather than another separate part of the essay.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is research around the area you'd like to expand upon, there are several ebook resources, especially in the Uni's library collection, about Web 2.0 being used to develop learning environments and the use of social media in the modern day classroom For example, New Digital Shoreline: How Web 2.0 and Millennials are Revolutionising Higher Education and Learning Through Technology. Education Unplugged: Mobile Technologies and Web 2.0 are two sources that immediately link Web 2.0 and education and there will be a lot in them to help. As with the other responses here, the use of mobile technology and social media to enhance classroom learning is very culture related, but is a stand out topic. Hope this has helped - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi there, yes definiltely would suit better in the Web 2.0 and Culture section, that way it will look more organised and neat. I can work on that if you let me. And thank you for posting the links for the resouces, so much of a help! Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I am going to mark the title of this section to reflect that we decided not to use this as a topic. If you have any questions, suggestions, or concerns please comment here and we can further discuss everything as a group! MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * hello! Since we said this could be a subsection, should I just move this to the Web 2.0 and Culture section? --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Lucia, yes that would be good. I'm going to start writing this part as soon as posible to add it to the Book part. I think we should all start to focus on the actual writing part of the essay because we only have 4 more days until the due date. If there is anything else that is needed to be searched or written about that might be missing just tell me, I'll be happy to do it! Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone, I believe this section could be helpful in the essay, but we should be careful as it could take up a good portion of the word count that might be needed for other parts of the Web 2.0 and Culture section. I think maybe a few sentences to explain how education is a great example of the interaction between Web 2.0 and Culture would be great, but we don't want to focus too much on examples and instead on their significants and overall relation back to Web 2.0. Do you guys feel like more emphasis should be placed on this subsection? Cause is=f so we could definitely work something out, I guess I just personally feel like this along with one or two more example would be helpful to give insight into the real world application of Web 2.0. Let me know what you think, I will be writing my part tomorrow so please feel free to add/edit what you please! MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that if the example is related to the main concepts and aspects regarding the Web 2.0 dynamics it can be really interesting and informative. As for the word count I agree that we should be careful, but since I am still unsure of what other people are going to write and how many words are they going to use I would suggest to go for it and then if we see that we have too much, take things out. What do you guys think? In my section I tried to stick to 250 words because I thought that if everyone wrote that amount we would reach 3000. --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 00:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we might need to add more to the Web 2.0 and Culture section, in regards to our individual contributions. I am working on my part on a second document and will upload it shortly to make sure I do not loose anything due to clashes. But I'm not sure if everyone is going to have their 250 words in the essay before Thursday or Friday, so I think at this point to make sure that everything is written and the overall essay grade is sufficient we should write what information we know, and for those joining last minute they can help edit and add onto the existing information. This way we don't set ourselves up to be waiting last minute. We should have the writing mostly done by tomorrow so we can edit and make sure the essay is cohesive. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, no, I was waiting for other people to contribute but I am going to be busy tomorrow and on Friday so I decided to add more stuff to my part. It's now around 500 words. I will try to contribute to other parts as well today, maybe will add something regarding the "discourse of versions" and will try to help people in the last section with the information I collected throughout my readings.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Death of Web 2.0
(Transition to Web 3.0) Would a few people mind researching and writing this part? I feel like we have a good amount of people focusing on the first two subjects and it would be beneficial to have a few people work here. My research has mainly been around Web 2.0 and Culture, but I will do some more research on The Death of Web 2.0 if others are not interested or having trouble finding information. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy to research and take on this part of the essay, I could combine the death of 2.0 to the possible start of 3.0, if that's alright with everyone else. Amybaird2|discuss 09:17, 13th March 2019 (UTC).


 * I appreciate that. And I think it is somehow related to what you have suggested before "A possible transition to Web 3.0". Would you like to combine them into one part? Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC).
 * & Thanks for taking the lead with this topic, I definitely think that we could combine the death of Web 2.0 and the transition to Web 3.0, as they affect each other. Looking forwards to seeing what you guys come up with! MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

yes, I think this could be a really interesting concluding point for our essay. Although I was researching for the second part of the essay, I will try to contribute to this part as well. I haven't found much information yet though, will let you know if I find something that can be added to the assignment.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great thank you for being so involved. I feel like we are definitely in a good place so far and by Friday will have a good amount of information to start writing this essay. Fortunately, it is only 3000 words so I feel like we will

have plenty of room to put our information but not feel too stretched thin. Looking forwards to seeing this essay develop! MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Hey, I have two questions can we just start writing our essay on this page however I will add a new topic to the page? Also how many references should we do each if we are all writing in this section? Amybaird2 (discuss • 08:17, 15th March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was checking to see if we are still doing this category together so I know roughly how many characters and sources to use. Amybaird2 (discuss • (contribs) 10:46, 15th March 2019 (UTC).


 * So it means that you guys will still work on this topic? I looked at the work division table and this part has the least people working on it. So perhaps I can explore more on this part. There is a book called exactly "The Death of Web 2.0" by our professor but it seems that it is not available in the school's library. I will try to find if there is any way we can read sources like this. Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • (contribs) 23:53, 15th March 2019 (UTC).

I just found the online version is actually available on the library's website. I will try to take a look at it later and see if there are any useful information. The author investigates deep with theories and principles. Would see if they are relevant Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • (contribs) 23:38, 16th March 2019 (UTC).

Hi, I read some chapters from Gaunttlet's book "Making is connecting," the points I got are in the "Sources" section down below. The book is useful in many ways but provides some ideas about the possible outcomes of the Web, so if any of you are interested you can find it on the Library Catalogue as an e-book. If you get different ideas from it let me know --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello again! For the people working on this section I found this book in the library catalogue Spreadable media: creating value and meaning in a networked culture and both and I think it could be interesting to write about the negative or problematic implications of Web 2.0 in order to explain the next step in the development of the Web. --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 21:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for letting us know about this source, I'll check it out tonight. I agree in thinking that understanding the negative aspects of Web 2.0 will be a crucial part of this section of the essay as it will allow us to explain the existence of an improved web 3.0. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi,   hope you guys are getting on okay with the section. I was thinking that regarding the structure maybe we could divide it into two sections? Like first writing about the "Death of Web 2.0" or the aspects that made it become "obsolete" (I can't find a better word to explain myself), and then go on about the possible outcomes as a kind of conclusion? It is only a suggestion, but I would like to know what you guys think or how you were planning to write it--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 01:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, that sounds like a great idea I am going to start writing my part up today so it will be up by tonight feel free to review it and edit it if things could be made better or wording changed. (discuss • contribs) 10:01, 26th March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi,  I agree that structuring the section into two subsections is a good idea.  From the readings I have come across the term "death of web 2.0" hasn't come up and so I think that we could possibly rename the section and one of the subsections to something else, perhaps more along the lines of "criticisms of Web 2.0" or perhaps "flaws of Web 2.0".  What do you guys think about this?  If your readings contradict what I have just said please let us know! BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * that sounds great, both of those could work in my opinion. I see someone edited the main page, well done! can't wait to see how it evolves. And regarding the second bit, I can't find any titles, but something related to Web 3.0 or/and the Future could work.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * all of the above sounds perfect to me, I couldn't come across the term 'death of 2.0' either I could just find the question 'is web 2.0 dead' so yes perhaps one person could do the flaws of 2.0 and the other could do the benefits of it then someone perhaps could do a mini paragraph on how 2.0 came such a big thing and how they are slowly moving away from it?? Also I was thinking we could aim for 250 words each as this is only one section of the whole essay. contribs) 09:05, 27th March 2019 (UTC)

If it's alright with everyone else I would like to talk about the flaws of 2.0 in relevance to monitoring youth depression risk in Web 2.0'' if that is alright with everyone else. I am using one source and aiming for 250 words today, was wondering if everyone else could start writing there 250 word bits in the section I made at the bottom of the page and tomorrow we can just clean it all up. Amybaird2 (discuss • Special Contributions/Amybaird2)


 * I just realised I have missed your suggestion after I finished typing a paragraph in the essay. And I am thinking of adding a short paragraph to talk about the flaws of Web 2.0(as what you have mentioned). But I am afraid the essay would exceed the word limit so maybe after we have finished our parts, we can check and make changes to them at last:) Also, do you guys know why some of our references in the essays is 18/19/20, but some of them are 1/2/3? Do you guys know how to fix the problem? Thank you so much! Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • (contribs) 15:19, 28th March 2019 (UTC).

I think would try to talk about the flaws in the perspective of privacy problem. Any opinions? And I will probably continue the work tonight.Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • (contribs) 15:40, 28th March 2019 (UTC).

Hey guys. That's it for me in the contents. You guys can make comments and suggestions on that:D Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • (contribs) 00:07, 29th March 2019 (UTC).


 * hey so I noticed this section "Successes of Web 2.0 possible semantic web (3.0)" and I feel like its more like a summary than any new points so I thought maybe you could blend it together with something else as we are over a hundred words? It also states semantic web 3.0 but I don't see much information on that so I think that it could work with the first bit--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, yeah that sounds much better what I will do is add my paragraph to the first section that is spoken about in our topic and maybe either delete the bit about semantic web 3.0 or structure it better before twelve. contribs) 08:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Essay Question
amybaird2: Thought I would create this section for any ideas on what the essay question could be so we can outline and structure exactly what is going to be included to start working on an argument.

Hi, anyone has any ideas about how to organise the essay? Some of you have already mentioned the Web 1.0, and Web 3.0. In my reading, I encountered the idea of Web 0.0 which could also be added as a subheading of the concepts linked to Web 2.0. Furthermore, I think that defining concepts related to Web 2.0 could be part of another subsection that directly addresses the characteristics of this version. What do you guys think?--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 22:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's only me, but I still can't see a structure. We have ideas, which is good, but we should make it more clear. So, could you please describe what would you like to write about? RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Introduction (500 words)

Body (500 words each)


 * Differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 (JackLeslie1999 and RichardwikiB)
 * Web 2.0 and Culture
 * A possible transition to Web 3.0 (Amybaird2)

I guess we should get back here when we are talking about the content in the essay, for the Body part, I think we can add * Impact of Web 2.0, further separating them positive and negative impact, the third part of the body can be some *Major examples for Web 2.0 such as youtube. Web9999 (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion (500 words)

I added a word count to the overall outline that and  created, here we can place our final structure. I am going to do some more research on the interaction between people and Web 2.0 and will place the ideas in the Topics/Subjects to Consider section for people to discuss and add to. Once that is finalized we can move it here MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that you are right, we should start organising more clearly the content of the essay. However, some people are arguing in the page of Topics and Subjects to consider, so I don't know where to write down the ideas. General question: SHOULD WE DISCUSS THE ESSAY STRUCTURE IN THIS SECTION OR THE "TOPICS AND SUBJECTS" ONE?--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said in the section above, and for those of you who might miss it among the other writing, I believe this section should be dedicated to the structure and more finalized information. Once people agree with the topics and have discussions in the Topics/Subjects to Consider section about those topics, than it can be moved here to finalize before we start writing. Does that work for everyone? MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That sounds good, in the Topics/Subjects to consider section, once we have determined or narrowed down topics, we could place them all in bold at the end so they are made clear? It might suggest further smaller points to be discussed within the structure, since there is a lot of us working on the essay it will be difficult to properly divide up the plan. Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 08:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely think that will be the easiest way to organize things. We can update this section as we go once we have more finalized plans. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 11:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * at what point do you guys think we should start actually writing the essay, or should we keep getting more info and ideas for now ? JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC).
 * I suggest everyone (!) should find out the topic they want to work on in order to get a final structure by Friday (15th March). After that we have 2 weeks to submit. Please, use the table @Olivier skinnylegend created! RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Division of Topics table is at the very bottom under the Contributors Section. Don't forget to add your name it will help us make sure that we do not all write about the same things. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been doing some reading on participatory culture and its relation to Web 2.0, and it struck me that we still do not have an Essay Topic/Title. I feel like having a title or overall topic for the essay at this stage could help to steer it in one cohesive direction. It seems like we have all gotten a lot of research done, and are close to writing. But maybe we could agree on a overall topic of our essay to help write and stay on track? I was thinking of something along the lines of: Web 2.0 and its Transformation of Popular Culture Essentially, the essay introduces Web 2.0, and then explains it's importance and impact in our society. Than it goes to explain its transformation into something else based off of society. Any comments? I think this might help eliminate any confusion on the overall goal of our essay. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this title. It's brief, still covers everything we want to mention. Also, a kind reminder to everyone: we have 11 days left! RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs)
 * I agree we definitely think we need to start getting information on the Book page. If you have your research done please post information on the Book Page and everyone can start working on editing and contributing to it. Even if its a rough draft putting information up will help to make sure people aren't writing the same things. I think we can write a really great essay, so lets start sooner than later to give us time to edit and enhance it! MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry for not answering, I went through the comments but did not notice yours! I think that the question you suggested fits in with the goal of our essay. So for now, unless there is some change on the topics mentioned, I think that your suggestion really works. As for the deadlines I agree with that there is not that much time left. If people have drafts or ideas it would be helpful if they posted them, as it will be easier for everyone else to edit their bits and make the essay sections work together.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to change the introduction and conclusion to 300 words each. This would allow those extra 400 word to go towards the body, as I feel like we will need more than 500 words to cover each topic. I suggest that the 400 words go to Web 2.0 and Culture. I believe this section is the main focus of our essay as it explains the meaning that Web 2.0 has in our cultures. The history and future of Web 2.0 are essential to explain the background of the topic and why it came to be. However, the main focus of the question and overall theme of the class is Digital Media and Culture, so I think spending more time on those sections will be crucial in explaining why Web 2.0 is so important in society. Anyone have any comments or suggestions about this word count change? MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes! I agree. I think that the introduction should not take that many words, which would allow us to explore the topics more deeply. As for the conclusion, I was thinking that maybe it could be part of the last section talking about Web 3.0? It is only a suggestion, but I think that maybe in the explanation of why Web 3.0 became into thinking, it could be a kind of summary of the positive and negative aspects that Web 2.0 has.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely think that making the conclusion part of Web 3.0 makes since. Maybe one paragraph at the end of that section can just take a look back at the overall achievements and downfalls of Web 2.0 in society, and its lasting outcome. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 02:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

With regards to the introduction are we looking to write this as a typical essay-style introduction(ie. outline the goals of the page and the topics ahead) or is the idea to make this more in the style of a standard Wikipedia page in which the introduction is simply outlining briefly what Web 2.0 is? If we were to go with the latter we may risk covering the same ground in the introduction that will be touched upon in the Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0 section, however I believe it is important to establish what Web 2.0 is first. Perhaps the basis of an introduction in this style could come from the definitions from O'Reilly (2005)? Would be great to know what you all think on the matter BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that starting with a definition of Web 2.0 and how the idea was originated, with O'Reilly's claims, could really work. As for the rest maybe we could briefly explain what the essay will cover and what our aim is.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that it would definitely be helpful for the introduction to briefly explain what Web 2.0 is. The first section of the assignment is about the differences of Web 1.0 and 2.0, so I think if we keep the introduction brief then we won’t run into repeating the same information. I also think it would be helpful to cover how Web 2.0 affects culture in one or two sentences. This way the teacher could go through the introduction and understand the overall focus of the essay. Hope this helps! MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Allen, M. (2012, July)
'''Allen, M. (2012, July). What was Web 2.0? Versions as the dominant mode of internet history. New Media & Society 15 (2), 260-275. https://doi-org.ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/10.1177/1461444812451567'''


 * I just read this academic article again, you can find it in the resource list of the module. As some of you have already mentioned, the ideas of a transition from the Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, and the notion of the emergence of Web 3.0 are mentioned. It is explained how Web 2.0 can be understood as a “rhetorical technology” that shifts how we think about the internet. The characteristics of this version are the participation and interactivity of its users, as well as creating a ‘democratic’ space online where everyone can contribute to. There are many ideas that could be related to the characteristics of web 2.0, like transmedia practices, always-on, media convergence, etc... In comparison, Web 1.0 is defined as a passive consumption of the content, mainly associated with commercial purposes.
 * Another key point is the argument that states how Web 2.0 was a return to the original ideas about the internet, going back the dreams of the creators about making the internet a universal place where everyone would be able to communicate. These origins are given the name of Web 0.0.
 * Last but not least, it is discussed how the discourse of versions serves to explain these changes in the way the internet works. There is not a radical shift between the versions, there is always a continuity of the content. This reminded me of a notion we mentioned in the workshops, the notion of remediation. I think that these points are really useful for us to start organising the essay, and I will leave a more brief description of those in the section of the ‘Essay Question.’ I would like to know what you guys think and if you have any further ideas about the concepts mentioned in the article.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

See my comment above in Topics and Subjects to Consider regarding this annotated bibliography.MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a very interesting resource. I like the point the author makes that we should focus also on the current meaning, purpose and significance of technologies because they are fought out through the creation of various historical accounts. Web 2.0, because of its insistence on versions, demands a certain ‘history’ for it to make sense. It is important to go back and see where it all started. Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * . I really like the way in which the author of this source defines the different 'versions' of the web as histories and think it could be really useful when tackling the debate on the death of Web 2.0.  The bibliography at the end of this source is also very useful for various sections of the essay, thanks for sharing! BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, I agree that the discourse about the versions is an important topic to mention. I am not sure whether it would be best to place it in the beginning or the end though. I would like to know what other people think, so I will post something in the main discuss section. --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Allen, M. (2012)
'''Allen, M. (2012). What was web 2.0? Versions as the dominant mode of internet history. text

Article Link

In this article, Allen explores web 2.0 as the marker of a discourse about the nature and purpose of the internet in the recent past. I thought this was a really good article for my section of the essay however can be used for any of the sections. The information is from 2012 and explores web 2.0 being dead going into discussing web 3.0 and lastly explains how we got to this point. Extremely helpful and is a good starter point for any section.

Amybaird2 (discuss 10:38, 15th March 2019 (UTC).

Anderson, P. (2007)
Hello guys I'm Emilia, I just found this interesting report from Paul Anderson where he explains how Web 2.0 is changing the way people interact with the internet now a days. That more than a set of ‘cool’ and new technologies and services, is a direct or indirect reflection of the power of the network. The author also makes references to the previous authors you have mentioned, like Tim O’Reilly, ‘the Web 2.0 meme has become so widespread that companies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword, with no real understanding of just what it means’ (O’Reilly, 2005a, p.1). In the second part of the content he develops and talks about a number of web-based services and apps that demonstrate the foundations of the Web 2.0 used for education: wikis, blogs, tagging and social book marking, multimedia sharing, and some others. Through the end, he emphasizes on the near future of Web 2.0 and the possible directions it might take. Would be good that you give it a look, he also includes a number of good references. Here is the link: http://www.ictliteracy.info/rf.pdf/Web2.0_research.pdf Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I wanted to read the article but for some reason my laptop doesn't let me open the link. I am not sure whether the issue is the link you provided or my computer. If it works for you, could you give me the name of the article so that I google it? Thank youu--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi there! The name of the article is "What is Web 2.0? - ICT and Digital Literacy", I didn't write the beggining of the link page correctly, but it is fixed, hope it lets you access now! Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think this is a great source, I must have missed it when scrolling down the bibliography before but I think it will be very useful for all of the sections which we are covering in our essay so thanks for sharing! BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Burgess, J. (2008)
'''Burgess, J. (2008, September). 'All Your Chocolate Rain Are Belong To Us?' Viral Video, YouTube and the Dynamics of Participatory Culture. The VideoVortex Reader, 101-109.'''

Article Link

In this short article Burgess seeks to explore the intricacies of a ‘viral video’ on YouTube and the importance of participatory culture in their successful virality. This is done through looking at two videos (Tay Zonday’s ‘Chocolate Rain’ and Jeong-Hyun Lim’s ‘Guitar’) that, for the respective time, are to key examples of viral videos on YouTube and then linking them to Jenkins' concept of 'spreadable' media. Burgess weighs their fame relative to other popular YouTube videos of 2007, their numerous ‘derivative works’ and how both were shared through social media platforms becoming internet culture. The article stands as an insightful extension to the Valtysson article exploring ‘remixability’ because of its in-depth discussion and definitions of the paratexts that were created following these two videos, such as ‘memes’ and ‘shot-for-shot’ remakes. Memes are, both today and in 2008, a large part of internet culture both for passive and active users, and many memes have become figures of speech in offline culture. In relation to this article, the video discussion by Tay Zonday became a viral meme, as an extension of the video. The article is limited in its exploration of internet culture due to its age, and for example it states 40 million views to be 'viral'. As the user base for Web 2.0 internet has grown this number dwindles by comparison. However, when wishing to look at participatory culture through Web 2.0 websites like YouTube, and how they have changed in the past 11 years, this article will more than suffice as another good perspective to add to our essay in the 'Web 2.0 and Culture' subsection. - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 17:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * These examples perfectly relate to the reading about remixability that you explained below. I think that these ideas about and the value of the user-generated content and the flow if it across the platforms emphasise the networking system of Web 2.0. They also illustrate the cultural importance of creating online content, which can have a political impact as it gives the power to the users to control what to post and how to change the media content. It is a really interesting reading. --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am glad you have seen some worth in this article, as I was initially a bit sceptical to how well it could cotribute to the overall discussion of Web 2.0 and participatory culture. And again, the political impact made by user-generated content is something I need to make clear because it is a strong point about the influences that online and offline cultures and politics have on one another that makes Web 2.0 such an interesting topic in the wider field of digital media. Thanks again, as always, for your feedback - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Cammaerts, B. (2008)
'''Cammaerts, B. (2008, December). Critiques on the Participatory Potentials of Web 2.0. Communication, Culture and Critique, 1(4), 358-377.''' https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/95133.pdf

Cammaerts’ article is a highly critical discussion of the participatory culture of the, then, newly developing ‘blogosphere’ and the cultural and democratic politics of the user-generated content platform. He begins by introducing the ‘Habermassian notion of the public sphere’ as the foundation for the critical perspective on blogs, with the perspective being that there is a lot of negative aspects of offline social networks to be brought with their migration from offline to online. With extensive engagement in various other critical perspectives, Cammaerts divides five areas of limitation within the blogosphere that exemplify their undemocratic ‘controlling and excluding’ nature. These five are separated by their influences; influence at a structural/organizational level (governments and companies) and at an individual level (common web users). He demonstrates his points by using case studies of real blogs and the influences upon them, such as censorship by the state, commercial funding and de-publicising by media conglomerates, and even blogs being openly attacked by far-right users. The case studies are well referenced and used effectively to convey the notion of a participatory culture still largely influenced by the governing bodies of countries and companies. The article makes an excellent addition to the already established researched into Web 2.0 and participatory culture because of its counter-perspective on the benefits of these technologies and cultures. The article, like most, is limited by its age because of the numerous amendments made to internet law and security in several states the world over since 2008. The critical perspective of the blogosphere and Web 2.0 culture is a fresh among many academics’ praise of technologies, so would be a good source of information for the essay. - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have today focused attention on this article because of my prior lack of engagement with sources that are critical of Web 2.0 and participatory culture and I see this article's opposing views to be a much needed addition to to my research. I have also expressed interest in other contributors' engagements with sources on participatory culture and noting the politics in their respective annotations because it is true that the political motivations of Web users are important for what they willingly participate to the online community. I was really interested by the points made in the aritcle and see it as a strong source of reference for our writings, so if anyone spares time to read this I hope you will give me some feedback, thanks again - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again ! I think that your annotated bibliography highlights very important points for our research on Web 2.0 and Culture. I also think that the fact that it criticises the initially "democratic" appearance of the web, can open up a discussion for the last section of the essay, as it can relate to the future of the online platforms. However, I was trying to read the full article but it says I have no access to it. I don't know if it is because I'm tired but I cannot figure out how to open it, is there any trick?--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your feedback, it is always good to hear something positive of your work. As far the fact that you cannot access the article, I do apologise, I did think the link I provided worked. I have just clicked the link and I do not get given access either. I have also tried clicking the link I found through Google Scholar, as this is the way I had found the article initially and no luck either. However, I have sourced another copy of the article in full by searching its title and Cammaerts' name. You can now read it by clicking this link https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/95133.pdf, or by copying it into your search bar. I will also update the other links I have already provided to ensure it will be accessible to everyone. Hope this has helped! - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for sharing this source! As you have said the sources which are more critical of Web 2.0 and its features have been slightly harder to come by but they will be crucial in forming the final section of our essay so I'll be sure to check this one out. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Caruso, S. J. (2018)
'''Caruso, S. J. (Third Quarter, 2018). Toward understanding the role of web 2.0 technology in self-directed learning and job performance. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 1(3). 89-98'''

In Shirley J. Caruso’s article, she discusses the relationship between employee self-directed learning (SDL) and Web 2.0 technology. She explains that employees require access to resources in the work place in order to support and guide individuals to increase productivity, and these resources have become available through Web 2.0. Caruso aims to create awareness around the need SDL employees have of Web 2.0 resources and analyze the key factors that affect how they use these resources to enhance their SDL. One study used to support Caruso’s theory by Boileau explains that employees are taking initiative to engage with interactive Web 2.0 technology to enhance their performance (2011). Boileau also claims that organizations increasingly interact with social media to facilitate social learning. This information is parallel to the collaborative essay on Web 2.0 because it gives a real world example of how society engages with Web 2.0. A limitation of this article is that it only addresses individuals in a work place, instead of explaining how the majority of society interacts with Web 2.0. However, employees are a great example of the interaction people have with online technology, and this can bring to light the overall effect of Web 2.0.


 * Hi there, this is a really neat and succinct annotation of the Caruso article and it was a nice read! I just don't know who has written it because of the lack of signature (the four ~). Thank you whoever you are, and I'm sure after seeing this you'll be quick to claim it - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Chau, C. (2011)
'''Chau, C. (2011, January). YouTube as a Participatory Culture. New Directions for Youth Development, 128, 65-74.''' Article Link

This article shares a perspective on Youtube as being a grounds for youth creative development and learning, both through passive consumption of the available media and by contributing one’s own new content. Chau begins by introducing some statistics on the user base of YouTube that falls in the age bracket of ‘youth’ to show that, whilst there are still more adults, that there is an increase in activity in the younger generation. His focus of the piece is looking at five main structures in what he calls the ‘participatory culture framework’ of YouTube. To each he gives a brief description/name and then gives a detailed analysis of how each of the five can give a young person on the platform benefits to help them flourish as an independent creator. For example, Chau explains how the platform functions as a host for ‘Informal mentorship’ where people contribute instructional videos on how to record and edit one’s own content so that more people can do the same (user-generated content influencing further user-generated content). This article would be a great benefit to research into participatory culture because of its look into YouTube, perhaps the most famous example of a platform for any web user to create. In addition, while not mentioning the term once, the article provides a host of information on a ‘Web 2.0’ platform, both in terms of its functions and its promotion of the participatory culture Chau is exploring. The article has its limits: being nearly 8 years old means the depth of knowledge about the platform is capped at the years prior to 2011 and it does not make suggestions of the longevity of the platform’s success. Whilst not looking to be the core of the research on participatory culture, this article will be another useful addition to the wealth of resources already cited. - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I like this article's approach to viewing web 2.0 and its potential by constraining it to one platform, YouTube. Chau is always making reference to the 'social networking' aspects of the site, like the open comments thread at the base of each video. Many of us reading this will note comments have also become a large part of participatory culture through the ease of accessibility for active/passive viewers and the ability to rate a persons response to the video just viewed, giving even the comment value in internet culture. YouTube even has the ability to help us learn how to use Wikipedia so that we can talk about YouTube. If anyone has any responses to the article or my annotation please feel free to share them below, thanks again - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008)
'''Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(6). doi:https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v13i6.2125'''

In this article Cormode et al explore the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, to show this the article shows how the web has changed in recent years and what specific websites are helping to influence and shaping web 2.0. The authors use multiple different ways to explore Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, these methods include putting different websites into tables in order to see what different content they produce. It also uses a chart to show how Web 2.0 allows content creators to show their works to content consumers. Rather than narrow their findings to specific parts of the Web, this journal focuses on multiple different areas of the web and how these sites can be viewed as a part of Web 2.0. This article would be useful for my Research as it helps to show differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 easily, through using charts and showing technical ways to view websites this journal article easily helps its readers to explore Web 2.0. However the main limitation of this article is its age, having been written in 2008, some of the articles topics could be deemed as outdated due to the changing nature of the internet. Thus, I believe this article could be deemed as partially useful as although its age hinders some points it is well written and provides many good points that would help form much of the research to describe differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC).
 * I just read the article and I think it is really interesting as it explains the main aspects of Web 2.0, mentioning the transmedia practices, participatory culture and the focus on the engagement of the users. It is also important that it illustrates that the distinction between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is not as clear as it seems, fact that we should consider when discussing the transition in our essay.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do like your comment about the age of the article and its sources in respect to this being about the most current trends in digital media, we can only go so far with something that is now more than 10 years old. Additionally, a lot more can be understood about Web 2.0 from our perspective today given, what you say, what has been outdated by newer examples. I agree that we should use the use their comments on the clarity of the distinctions, we could even contend their comment on it with another source who suggests that in fact the distinction is clear. If we are to take a critical view on the topic of Web 2.0, we should be critical of multiple perspectives too - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 13:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Dahlgren, P. (2014)
'''Dahlgren, P., 2014: ‘Social media and Political Participation’ in Fuchs, C., Sandoval, M. Critique, Social Media and the Information Society. New York: Routledge. 191-202'''

Peter Dahlgren explains in his article how important social media has become as a tool in the development of people’s participation in politics and democracy. Using theories from influential writers such as Carpentier, Dahlgren aims to develop his ideas around how social media platforms and web as a whole has allowed people to utilize this technology to communicate with new strategies and purposes. At the center of this discussion is the idea that politics are created through communication. This relates specifically to the topic of Web 2.0 because the creation of Web 2.0 allowed tools such as social media platforms to amplify communication in a way that could never be achieved through traditional media. Dahlgren’s perspectives on social media and its impacts on politics in society is a great example that shows how influential the tools Web 2.0 provided society really are. Despite its focus primarily on politics, Dahlgren’s overall ideas revolving participation through social media is pivotal in explaining how Web 2.0 made an impact in society. Participation is one of the major differences between Web 1.0 and 2.0, and because of tools such as social media global participation is possible to shape and influence aspects of society such as politics. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that this is a great source for our section of Web 2.0 and Culture. As I suggested there, mentioning how politics comes into play could be good as it enhances how important the implications of Web 2.0 are. Nice work! Thanks for sharing--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 21:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I'be only just noticed this and am really impressed with the source. I had never thought of politics as a different way of participating or as being part of participatory culture. This should definitely either be mentioned in either 'Web 2.0 and Culture' or, like you even say, 'Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0'. And I do even remember the discussion of politics as having different meanings in digital media as well. Like Lucia says, nice work and thanks again! - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Gauntlett, D. (2018)
'''Gauntlett, D. (2018). Making is connecting, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.'''

This is a book that Greg mentioned in the podcast for Web 2.0. Although the whole book contains many good points we could use, I have decided to stick to the introduction, seventh and tenth chapters. Gauntlett foregrounds the social features of Web 2.0 comparing it to social media. These characteristics make the collaborative process of creating reach an advanced potential due to the global scope that the online platforms have. Therefore, this demonstrates a new attitude among the users which actively participate and engage with the platforms instead of passively consuming the media products. The descriptions of this change portray the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. The other two chapters focus on the possible future of the Web as a “public service” that resembles the Wikipedia format, instead of a hierarchical system that only has a economic profit as a goal. Creativity is already there, it is a matter of developing the ways in which this is circulated. He is also concerned with the lack of control of the platforms and therefore highlights the importance of attempting to carefully recreate the platforms as a place for kindness and support.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hempel, J. (2009)
Hempel, J. (2009, January 8). ''Web 2.0 is so over. Welcome to Web 3.0''. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/technology/hempel_threepointo.fortune/index.htm

This source is critical of web 2.0 social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Myspace and Youtube for their profitability. This article concedes that these websites can have large, loyal user bases, but they are simply not that viable economically. Cites that 2008 was supposed to be a breakthrough year for Web 2.0 but this did not come to fruition. Most of these sites rely on banner ads for revenue but these spaces are not very valuable as they do not receive much user attention. This article provides an interesting read into attitudes on social media as an economic powerhouse as this article seems to believe that these companies will fall by the wayside when in fact, ten years on, the only one of the companies mentioned in this article to do so is MySpace. Will need to look into figures of profitability of some of these web 2.0 companies today and see how valuable they are, could contradict idea of web 2.0 being dead. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 21:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Jackson, P. (2010).
Jackson, P. (2010). Web 2.0 Tools and Context. Web 2.0 Knowledge Technologies and the Enterprise,11-53. https://ac.els-cdn.com/B9781843345374500028/3-s2.0-B9781843345374500028-main.pdf?_tid=59cda6fe-2f46-41e1b099c201e4c9c71e&acdnat=1551890389_ba542ac2f87f359392f533c2d16e1028

The chapter ‘Web 2.0 Tools and Context’ explains what the key tools of Web 2.0 are and what the potential use of these tools is in a corporate setting could be. ‘Web 2.0 Tools and Context’ aims to show how these tools can be used directly by users. This chapter scopes to show how Web 2.0 tools should be seen as a set of configurable components rather than individual components. It discusses the concept of Web 2.0, blogs, microblogging, wikis, social tagging, RSS (Really Simple Syndication), social networking, semantic web, mashups and combining web 2.0 tools into a system for work. This is useful to current web 2.0 research as it shows a clear link to the web 2.0 subject and explains basic information about the expansion of web 2.0. The limitations of this chapter are that it is short so cannot show a full scope of web 2.0 as a fully researched area. This chapter effectively explains the main technological advances of web 2.0 and their effectiveness. Morvenjamieson (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that this a really useful source as it touches upon many of the topics that characterise Web 2.0. I believe that the examples that are mentioned and the terms that are included can be of great interest for the essay. --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Jenkins. (2010)
'Jenkins, H. (2010, January 9.) Fandom, Participatory Culture, and Web 2.0''. Retrieved from http://henryjenkins.org/2010/01/fandom_participatory_culture_a.html''' text

Jenkin’s blog briefly discusses the similarities between fandom, participatory culture and web 2.0, recounting a subject which he has been teaching students at USC. Although there is not a great deal of information within this text it does provide an interesting angle on web 2.0 which can be explored further. The blog also includes a reading list which could prove useful. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the emphasis on the engagement of the users with the platform and content that Jenkin mentions in his writings is highly important when discussing the relationship between Web 2.0 and culture. The amount of articles referenced by the end of the post is really helpful! I'll try to check some out.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Jenkins, H., Ford, S. & Green, J. (2013)
'''Jenkins, H., Ford, S. & Green, J. (2013). Where Web 2.0 Went Wrong. In Spreadable media: creating value and meaning in a networked culture (pp. 47-84). London: New York University.'''

Can be accessed via e-book: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/stir/detail.action?docID=1114591

This is the first draft of my annotated bibliography. Since I will probably change and delete some of the topics I mentioned to adjust to the word limit I decided to share it here. In this chapter, the authors analyse how the participatory culture that Web 2.0 has shaped the relationship between the platforms’ owners and users. Introducing the concept of moral economy, the conflicting interests of sharing free content and the aim of obtaining economic profit are explained as elements disrupting the social contract implicit in Web 2.0. The aim of the chapter is to discuss the ethical issues arising from the establishment of the business model in Web 2.0 platforms. Other key topics are the complicated correlation between on the one hand, free labor and alienated labor, and on the other hand, commodity culture and gift economy. The arguments are illustrated with a wide range of examples and academic research. The text will be useful in my research about the internal issues of the platforms and the future of Web 2.0. The main limitation of the chapter is its date of publication. Considering how fast the internet develops, the study of the relationship between users and owners and the possible outcomes need to be further researched studying the most recent platforms. I believe that some of the points made by the authors could be highly interesting when discussing the negative or conflictive side of Web 2.0, as well as the possible transition to Web 3.0.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this source will be very useful for the section on The Death of Web 2.0 and a possible Web 3.0. I think if we can define the flaws within Web 2.0 we will be better able to explain why a Web 3.0 is necessary in the first place and this source does exactly that so thank you very much for sharing!  Also if anyone else would like to access this source I will attach a link to the ebook for it. BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 18:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, I completely agree with what you said, this could be an interesting approach for the last bit of our essays. Thank you for sharing the e-book link--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 21:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Lanier, J. (2013)
'''Lanier, J. (2006). “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism,” Edge. Retrieved from https://www.edge.org/conversation/digital-maoism-the-hazards-of-the-new-online-collectivism'''

Lanier’s work studies the inherent issues of collective intelligence building in the digital era. The essay mainly focuses on Wikipedia but includes several other examples that clarify the extended problematic implications of the terms. Although admitting that smart mobs can create highly intelligent and organised content online, the overall argument is that the acceptance of this without further discussion can lead to blindly embrace unreliable information. The open access for the users to participate and aggregate content onto the pages can also be chaotic and, therefore, many of these online platforms have tried to create different mechanisms to control this participation. This article will be a valuable source to provide a wider analysis of the negative aspects that collective intelligence has. The main limitation is its publishing date, as the arising of new emerging platforms and behaviors are increasingly multiplied in the Web.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think I will add this information to the section of Collective Intelligence unless we have too many words. By mentioning the dangers of smart mobs and collective intelligence the section can be more critical instead of merely informative. If anyone has any feedback let me know. I would be happy to read your suggestions --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 00:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., & Kelly, K. (2009)
'''Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., & Kelly, K. (2009). Wiki worlds and Web 2.0. In New Media: A Critical Introduction (pp. 204-209). Routledge.'''
 * This is a brief description of Web 2.0’s history, however, I believe that it is a good place to start with, as it mentions some of the basic principles. The section states how Tim O’Reilly coined the term. I have already left a link to his webpage, and I will try to write down the most important points this afternoon. The emergence of Web 2.0 is seen as one of the consequences of the dotcom crash. Maybe it would be interesting to briefly mention this event in our essay in order to explain the changes in the web. O’Reilly mentions “The Long Tail” explaining the development of a market in which narrow niche audiences arise. This term leads to the notion of the user-generated data that serves to improve the algorithm of the platforms upgrading the experience of their users while being used for commercial purposes on the market. Lastly, Web 2.0 is described as a “people-led practice of knowledge” (Lister et al. 2009, 206), also named as a “Folksonomy.” I think this is quite interesting; the collective intelligence showed in platforms such as Wikipedia illustrates the consequences of the characteristics of Web 2.0. It shows one of the most positive outcomes of this practice, which can be compared to the ethical issues associated with the involvement of the companies and their use of the data generated by the users. --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 10:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Murugesan, S. (2007)
'''Murugesan, S. (2007, August). Understanding Web 2.0. IT Professional, 9(4), 34-41.''' Article Link

Murugesan writes a piece introducing readers to the concept of Web 2.0, its potentials for the internet and interactivity and an in-depth look at a Web 2.0 product’s technological foundation. Some of the potential ‘facets’ of Web 2.0, as he calls them, are Blogs, Wikis and Mashup websites, among others. Blogs and Wikis, as we know, allow for much user-generated content, and a Mashup website is one that allows for separate web services to be coded into another dedicated website, e.g. Google Maps within a fishing enthusiast page. He goes into detail about how a common web user can interact with these websites and comments on their significant potential for change in online culture. As for the technological foundation, Murugesan lists AJAX,  Flex,  JavaScript and  Google Web Toolkit as  SDKs that allow Web 2.0 to be made possible. Whilst they may be out of date be today’s standards, these services’ inclusion in this article is important for understanding how a Web 2.0 website like YouTube or  Myspace could be made and maintained in 2007. The article could be viewed as limited by its minimal engagement with critical academia because of the importance of critical viewpoints required in the essay. However, it only means to explain things to a reader that the writer already knows of Web 2.0 potential and technology, which is done effectively and efficiently. Overall, this article serves as a strong foundation for understanding what a Web 2.0 service is, in the way it is literally coded to work with user interaction, and for understanding the impact the created services can have on the online and offline cultures of the society they are deployed in. - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * and Hi guys, I know this article is not a strict example of participatory culture, the area of Web 2.0 that I am researching, however I feel it could be useful to cite for looking at the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. I believe this because of the detailed description of how the SDKs, mentioned in the annotation, and how they allow for a Web 2.0 page, like Wikipedia, to even function. If either of you two give this article a read, let me know what you think and I do hope that I have helped in a way.
 * As well as this, this article does give a good account of what a Wiki is, and I understand we all still have an exercise to do writing about 'What Wikis are'. So, I would recommend this as a potential source for the micro-essay and if not a good enough source I still really enjoyed reading through it. Thanks again everyone! - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Although we have already written the majority of the bit for web 1.0 vs web 2.0 this article raises many good points as you've described. Perhaps these good points could also be used for the other sections of the essay also as it seems to cover a wide stroke of the web 2.0 map JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC).
 * as a second point, i believe you have a good idea in using it for the "what are wikis" exercise as it seems useful in that aspect JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright then, I did notice your section was mostly complete so it was just a thought. Thank you for giving it a look over, you have helped me see that it has potential outside just being an article about Web 2.0's foundations. - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Myres, G. (2010)
'''Myres, G. (2010). The discourse of Blogs and Wikis. Chapter 2 Genre: What is a Blog? What is a Wiki? pp.15-27.''' Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This was in the recommended reading for week 7, it discusses blogs and mainly wiki pages. This reading may not be relevant to the full essay but it could be a useful source when talking about Web 2.0 and the way it has impacted culture/society. Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This reading acts as an overview and a brief explanation of the use of wikipedia and blogs. It focuses on the different types of online communities that use blogs/wiki pages in order to understand the purpose of the websites. It was written in 2010 so is slightly outdated, however, it makes some good points towards the change of users online ability to contribute and I think this could be linked to Web 2.0. Myres determines wiki pages and blogs as genres of text and these genres are defined by what the page is used for and its social impact or the social communities they form. Although this may not be relevant, he discusses the people who founded wikipedia and the formatting for blogging, it may be worth mentioning these names to show attention to detail? (page 16). The negatives of wiki pages are also expressed, through analysing the websites structure, Myres determines its flaws. The potential of wikipedia is also appreciated in terms of the content which is posted but Myres does express how this can be difficult to find due to the mass amount of content posted that may not serve for a worthwhile purpose. Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your ideas on this reading are very interesting, noting how some of it may be outdated, it could be interesting to explore the relevancy of wikis and blogs in the web 2.0 sphere JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

O'Reilly, T. (2005)
I found this article: https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1. Tim O'Reilly was one of the people coining the term of Web 2.0, this contains some of the main ideas. I will write my understanding of the text as soon as I read it.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

'''O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved from https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html'''
 * This article contains many examples of the companies’ and apps’ developments after the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. In the end, O’Reilly summarizes seven aspects that characterise Web 2.0: 1. the employment of the platforms as services (not packaged software) which customers pay for, 2. the use of user-generated data as a means to offer this service and update the platforms, 3. “Trusting users as co-developers” 4. Collective intelligence to build the structure and content of the web, 5. investing in the “long tail”, paying attention to niche customers and offering accustomed services, 6. interoperability of the net through multiple devices and 7. “Lightweight user interfaces, development models, and business models”. For further info on the examples I would recommend you to read the article, I wanted to summarise the main points here, which I think might be important for our essay’s main body.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Valtysson, B. (2010)
'''Valtysson, B. (2010, May 25). Access Culture: Web 2.0 and Cultural Participation. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(2), 200-214.'''

Article Link

In this article, Valtysson applies the work of several influential media scholars, including Manual Castells's theory of the 'network society', to explore further what it means to be a consumer, producer and creator of media in the new digital age. He references many other writers such as Habermas, Manovich and Lessig, and cites their contributions to work on digital culture. He also makes specific reference to the first open-source digitally animated short film Elephants Dream (Kurdali, 2006), which he suggests is an important landmark in the digital prosumer age because of its copyright laws and the 'remixability' of it. 'Remixability', is a term he details in the section 'Prosumers and remixed culture', which is important for research into participatory culture because it looks at the new ways a common web user can become a media creator. With the use of Web 2.0 websites and relevant social media, such as YouTube and Facebook, many users can remix, or reproduce with their own additions, already existing digital property that can be found online (he also discusses the new legal issues that are apparent as a result, e.g. Creative Commons). Limitations of the article include the fact that many readers, including myself, may have not previously heard of or seen the key example of remixable digital media, Elephants Dream, or any of the remixes that Valtysson makes reference too. However, this is made less of an issue by the fact the short film is available online and accessible for free (YouTube Link). Another limitation is the fact that since 2010 many more examples of 'remixability' platforms have been established and also greatly exemplify his writing, e.g. Tik Tok. To conclude, the article will make a useful addition to existing research on this page on 'Web 2.0 and Culture' because it provides a new look at the way in which media on the internet is created and shared, as well as an extensive look at Creative Commons and the legality of producing remixed content online.

- Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the ideas of exploring the remixability of the new age of internet, as you say it seems to be something that we haven't explored, in that light it may be something interesting to explore throughout the course of the wikibook JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC).


 * Thanks for sharing this source! I definitely think that the points made by the article can be very good points to include on the Participatory Culture section above. This can be linked to creativity and Gauntlett's arguments on how creating content online is political in a way. The article also mentions Habermas' emphasis on the political and rational debate. Both of these could be part of a section in which we discuss how the characteristics of Web 2.0 make this version have a political dimension. --Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 23:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your feedback left here, I do need to think a little more widely when examining certain articles, like looking into the range of terminology used. The political value that you have highlighted here for me is something that I originally overlooked so I am grateful. I will be using this source as reference in my subsection of the essay and I will do my best to expand upon the more academic distinctions made by the author of the article - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Tips & Tricks
Thought this section might be helpful to everyone. Here we can place links to useful information about subjects such as editing, formatting, and topic related resources. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If you find yourself as confused with the formatting as I am, check out this cheatsheet. It has all the coding needed to properly format the article. I think the key to keeping things running smoothly is to follow these guidelines to keep our work organized and efficient. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Make sure you also check out the citation templates at the bottom of the cheatsheet page as it is different from APA citations. MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This Cheatsheet is going to be so much of a help and we can use it to shape our work correctly, thanks for sharing!! Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the coding can be tricky sometimes so it is definitely helpful to have something to use as a reference. Happy to help! MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I was struggling with how to link wikipedia articles seamlessly into text the other day while doing the annotated bibliography exercise but managed to figure it out so thought I'd share with you. For example if you wanted to create a link to the Web 2.0 you would open two square brackets type 'w:Web 2.0' and then close with two more square brackets. However if you do this the 'w:' will appear in the text. if you want to hide this you should put a line '|' after the link, and then type whatever you want the link to look like in your text, in this case 'w:Web 2.0|Web 2.0'. Reading this back it seems quite convoluted as I can't use the square brackets here without it trying to create a link and so I will do it in code below and if you are struggling you can click edit on this section and copy and paste.
 * Link to Web 2.0 without hiding link Web 2.0
 * Link to Web 2.0 with link hidden Web 2.0

Again sorry if that is quite convoluted but hopefully it will help some of you and save you some time! BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 19:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for sharing this information, I will use it in my section of the essay, as it doesn't have any links yet.--Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Images
Hello, feel free to take any of these images from WikiCommons for your writing in the essay. Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey I've only just noticed this new section after uploading my first photo to the discussion page, thank you so much, definitely helped me get to grips with formatting the images! - Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Contributors
This subsection of the discussion page is to list the contributing groups to the "Web 2.0" essay page Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As well as this, a table where we can better organise who is writing, or at least researching, which topic within the umbrella term of 'Web 2.0' Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 12:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The Seed is Strong
Olivier skinnylegend (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Lucia.notifications5 (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

JackLeslie1999 (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

RichardwikiB (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

WebFeet
MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Digitalmedia2018 (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Morvenjamieson (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Team Rosselli
Amybaird2 (discuss • contribs)

Emiliarosselli (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Web9999 (discuss • contribs) 17:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Cantthinkofanyname (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Division of Topics
Or at least what you are researching
 * & Don't forget to sign up for a topic to write about, that way we don't all research the same information for the same topics!MarketingMaine (discuss • contribs) 23:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Success' of Web 2.0 and possible transition to the Semantic Web (3.0)
Points I am going to cover: Success of Web 2.0 Transition to the 'semantic web' aka Web 3.0

Hey decided to make this as it can be where we start writing our paragraph out discussing the death of 2.0. Feel free to change anything or add anything. Amybaird2 ((User talk:Amybaird2|amybaird2)) 12:45, 25th of March (UTC)

Web 2.0 was merely created in an attempt to develop the internet primarily known as the 'second stage,' characterized by the change from web pages to user-generated content and the continuing growth and rise of social media. The social networking sites such as Facebook and myspace is critical to the success of Web 2.0 applications. Hendler and Goldbeck explain that the fact content can be shared and enhanced by personal connections rather than through search or query techniques it has emerged as a major aspect of the success of Web 2.0 applications. For example, YouTube is a modern web application it allows you to upload a video and create content which can then be shared by other users allowing a bigger platform for the video to be a popular node of the network of videos. Web 2.0 has been successful however in more than just the social networking applications, many businesses and organisations have also benefitted from the advancement.

The technologies can be a powerful lure for an organisation; their interactivity promises to bring more employees into daily contact at lower cost.

Companies using Web 2.0 have benefitted profoundly as their is a greater ability to share ideas; improved access to knowledge experts and reduced costs of communications, travel and operations. Web 2.0 has been the pinnacle of success regarding social applications and businesses.


 * Hi, I wrote out my first draft paragraph in the essay page but still have more to add, likewise you can feel free to change or add anything as you see fit! BigFeetMan (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: COLLABORATIVE ESSAY
General Feedback: Essays of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for the collaborative essay. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular and individual response to the brief, this will give you a more clear idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Good. Among other things, work of this standard will make a clear point in a clear way. It will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. It will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). It may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and is likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

Specific Feedback:
 * You have submitted a fairly detailed, and well written response to the brief. Here you outline a number of arguments that specifically address the theme of ˈˈWeb 2.0ˈˈ, and your discussion of the research evidences a fairly broad and well-read working knowledge of a range of relevant scholarship on your chosen topic. The examples that you have chosen to discuss your theme are            well-chosen, and illustrate a familiarity with a number of facets of the theme of Web 2.0 as a whole.
 * The essay is written for the most part in a fairly mature style, and the argument here is logically structured, is in general terms quite critically engaged, and you have demonstrated awareness of some of the contradictions inherent in the theme itself. This is, in other words, fairly solid work that covers a number of interrelated issues and fields of study. I would have liked to have seen much more creative (and forgiving!) use of the wiki formatting here – especially at the beginning of the essay, there are long tracts of text that look unwieldly, and would have benefitted from additional formatting, or perhaps captioned images to further illustrate the arguments. Additionally, although most of the time, the citation method is perfectly fine, there are one or two paragraphs that could have clearly benefitted from a handful of in-text citations whilst being economical with word count.

N.B.: Feedback for your discussion, and individual contribs elements for the assessment will be given on your individual User Discussion Pages. Grades for all work will communicated confidentially via Canvas.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)