[LINK] RFC: Web 2.0

[rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au]

Roger,

Looking at Section 3, it occurs to me that one of the defining 
characteristics of Web 2.0 is the invention of statistics. From the 
citation of the Meckler paper:

> *S. Korea* - Broadband penetration of 70%+ -No. 1 in world

Yeah, right. From the OECD, more recent data, we find that SK's total 
broadband penetration is 26.9% by population. The total Internet 
population was 30 million in 2004 (source: Digital Review, 
www.digital-review.org), so broadband penetration was (and is) less than 
half of Internet subs.

The presentation itself - at least the "Internet data points" - is a 
hilarious example of that strange sort of "Web 2.0" thinking that 
conceives of "Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V" as a new paradigm of some sort. Trying to 
source the Danish VoIP numbers, I found the same bullet list here:
www.fiwm.de/FIWM/fileadmin/AK_Mobile/Gazecki_Web2.0-Mobile2.0.pdf  
(warning: PDF link)
and here (warning, powerpoint):
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ZrC1HBxvQVoJ:ww2.wpp.com/WPPDocuments/2006/WPPAGM_MarkReadpres_Jun06.ppt+ppt+south+korea+broadband+denmark+voip+minutes&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=5
and here (pdf again):
http://www.mncc.com.my/DAY1/LaurenceSi.pdf
and here (PPT again):
http://www.govtech.co.za/presentations/Day3/Track4/Track4_Patrick%20Flusk_Ekurhuleni%20session%204.ppt

In other words, a piece of mythology which seems to have been launched 
by Morgan Stanley (wow, there's an investment strategy for you!!) is now 
Web 2.0-distributed all over the globe without the slightest challenge!

...all of which makes me wonder how reliable the *other* data points are!

RC

Roger Clarke wrote:

Roger Clarke wrote:

> I'm trying to make sense of Tim O'Reilly's Web 2.0 movement:
>
>          Towards an Understanding of the Web 2.0 Notion
>      http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/EC/Web2C.html
>
>
> Ignore the academic claptrap in sections 1, 5 and 6, and focus on:
> -   s.3 re what Web 2.0 is
> -   s.4 re which parts are substance not just hype, and where they lead
>
> Thanks, as ever, for constructively negative feedback!
>
> I'm on a deadline to finish and submit it this coming Saturday 25 Nov.
>
> I'm trying to make sense of Tim O'Reilly's Web 2.0 movement:
>
>          Towards an Understanding of the Web 2.0 Notion
>      http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/EC/Web2C.html
>
>
> Ignore the academic claptrap in sections 1, 5 and 6, and focus on:
> -   s.3 re what Web 2.0 is
> -   s.4 re which parts are substance not just hype, and where they lead
>
> Thanks, as ever, for constructively negative feedback!
>
> I'm on a deadline to finish and submit it this coming Saturday 25 Nov.
>