So we've all been hearing about Web 2.0. It's sort of like the word
postmodern. People say it - you even say it - but the meaning behind it is
slippery.
I've had an intuitive "feel" for Web 2.0 for a
long time. That's what brought me to blogging, strangely enough. I wanted to
write and "felt" that this was a good way to do it. I'm rather stuck between
traditional media and social media. I did write a book, but it didn't sell that
well, and I don't care enough to try to do anything about that. I do write for a
magazine, but I send them traffic with my blog. Where do I fit in all this?
Once traditional media sources were the
gatekeepers, the lords of information. And we needed these experts. We still
need them, but we need them in different ways. In the new world of information,
millions of people write and tag information either formally with tagging
systems, or informally by linking to something they like. Good, reliable
information rises to the top through a fascinating system of trust and
reputation. Break that trust and you'll find your links disappearing quickly and
your traffic dwindling.
We need experts to help tag information and
create the links and the networks. You won't be as much of a star as a columnist or
anchor-person, but you will be in the game. You probably won't be in the game if
you can't let go of traditional media ideas.
Write well. Write about true things. Write
responsibly and use the best information you can gather. People will read you and tag you and link
to you. Good information has a way of rising to the top. Not all good
information rises to the top, but that's always been the case. Not every good
writer was published in the old system either. Occasionally some junk gets
through, but that's always been the case as well. Trust me on this: if you are a
writer, you have a
better chance in this new world. More good writers will be read in our new world
of networked information.
If these changes threaten or anger you, join in
the conversation. But PLEASE resist the juvenile urge to find some single perceived flaw
with the Internet and trumpet it loudly and with glee. e.g. the
Wikipedia critics who keep telling us that bad
information could get in. GASP! REALLY? I'll keep that in mind as I weigh the
benefits of this massive and constantly updating information network against my
2001 Encyclopedia Britannica.
This developing information system isn't perfect.
No system is. Would you like us to list the flaws inherent in newspapers and
television news? Do you really want to compare the amount and quality of
information that a motivated person could gather 25 years ago with the information an experienced internet
veteran can gather in 20 minutes today?
Check out this video. It tells the story pretty
well.
