Anti-Social Computing: Exposing the Web 2.0 Myths
There is a myth that there is a new kid in town. Sometimes called Web 2.0, at other times “Social Computing” and some of the real fanatics come close to likening it to the coming of the Messiah. Its not that Web 2.0 isn’t real, it certainly drives a lot of new development, no the point is that the software itself is not very interesting, it’s the people intended to use the software that is the supposed revolution.
“Unlock the masses voices”, “Let the little man speak”, “A voice for all”….you’ve probably seen similar phrases to describe this new phenomenon. Is it really a phenomenon? Or perhaps it is just a fad? Or is it neither, rather just the language of the day?
How can one tell a phenomenon from fad? That’s a tough one. Many billions have been spent and lost by people who thought they knew, and many billions have been returned to a few who were right. So, it is important to get this right; we neither want to waste money nor do we want to miss an opportunity.
Whether or not Web 2.0 / Enterprise 2.0 is a phenomenon, it is not because of the underlying software. APIs come and go and despite some hyperbole to the contrary, there is nothing about Web 2.0 that inherently makes software development faster, cheaper, more robust, or more secure than whatever one wants “Web 1.0” to mean (whatever it means to you). Web 2.0 also does not inherently affect the users
Human nature being what it is, the very fact that some folks have managed to add a “2.0” moniker works to convince other people that this is the appropriate next step in computing (whatever “this” is). But, even with the apparent success of Wikipedia, Facebook, MySpace and other new-age sites, it isn’t clear that there is anything new to share.
Actually, it really does not seem fair to compare something like Wikipedia and Facebook; the former is as much about altruistic behaviour (with checks and balances in place to account for bad-guys bent on abusing the service – “yes Virginia, there really is a Santa Claus”; sorry, Virginia, there is not). Far from the idealistic Web 2.0 viewpoint, most of the truly controversial subjects in Wikipedia are locked down (I’ll come back to this salient point in a bit).
This is quite different from Facebook where commercial pressures are in place, where people’s natural wish to interact is used against them (for their own good of course).
With over 20 years experience on the Internet, watching it learn and grow from a text-based, batch-oriented web of information into the present day dynamic mix of audio, visual, live streams, and web cams, I look upon all new paradigm shifts with a somewhat jaundiced eye. The Web 2.0 wave is no different from my own humble beginnings with the Internet.
So yes, I’ve contributed to Wikipedia – once and not as any sort of expert, just in the way I think it was envisioned from the outset, I updated an article I was reading with some current information. I’ve also an account on Facebook, another on LinkedIn, and I’ve even registered with Spock and BlueChip; I’m not unfamiliar with social computing web sites.
I also used to own a Pet Rock and wore Elephant pants, I had platform shoes, my brother owned a timeshare in Arizona, I knew folks who bought an AMC Pacer, we once owned a waffle maker, a yogurt maker, and a bread maker, even a blow-up pool. I own an IPod, a DVD player, and home entertainment (audio) setup (but not yet an HDTV, I’m too cheap for that); three computers, two gaming systems today (I’ve cut way back on the electronics) – I even used Brylcreem growing up. I’ve experienced fads and phenomena many times and I’ve not always recognized one from the other.
The difference isn’t always easy to see, in fact, sometimes one becomes the other. So, what is Web 2.0 if it isn’t about technology? Truthfully, I don’t think it is anything new at all.
I have a good friend of mine who went to a Web 2.0 expo in California (where all good ideas are from ) and he returned jazzed up in a way I’d only seen in folks returning from an Amway presentation. Web 2.0 was “clearly more capable, more agile, the wave of the future. They can turn around new application and add new functionality so easily, Software as a Service, man you gotta love it!”
“Did anybody show a wining business case at the show?” says doubting Thomas
“Oh sure, SalesForce.com was there!”
“yeah, well that’s not Web 2.0 or Software as a Service” says I
“No, they had some other application”
“Did anybody show a winning Web 2.0 business case then?” – the answer, in case you had any doubt, was no – dreams and hyped expectations, no solid business case. Nobody has made money on Web 2.0 as yet.
SalesForce.com was there, but without a business case – riding the wave like everybody else, no serious success stories outside of Facebook and MySpace – both of which have yet to show a viable business, only a viable user base. LinkedIn may well be making money (as a private company it is hard to say) but if it is, it is doing so in the traditional user-account-fee basis not with any new-fangled technology or thinking. They have found a reason for large groups of people to get together which brings traditional advertising revenue – and because they know so much about their ‘customers’, they can get very targeted with their ads – and they’ve found some folks willing to pay money for “premium” service but frankly, none of that is new and the jury is still out as to whether the actual service, that “Network of Business Associates” has the value everybody hopes it does.
One might say that LinkedIn itself is an example of some new type of thinking, but is it really more than just an easy way to keep an address book? Don’t get me wrong, I like the fact that I’ve hooked up with a lot of folks I’d lost contact with, and though I’ve not had occasion to use it myself, I’m sure it is helpful when looking for a job but networking is hardly a new activity.
Facebook offers the first glimpse at something potentially new, an open platform to bring applications to. It solves a real problem too, though not the one it thinks. It solves the portal problem – a difficult problem to be sure – and it solves it in a unique way. Rather than having to make the portal software, it makes those who create the software responsible for the portal use. It even seems that there might be some utility to a service like Facebook, it does seem to offer a unique place for social intercourse (pun intended, the amount of juvenile sexual innuendo on Facebook cannot be overestimated) and some attempts have been made at social justice using Facebook as a platform (groups). In the end, however, its not clear that Facebook offers much more than an online petition would -- at least not once the traditional (TV) media stop pandering to every new group Facebook creates.
Myth: Web 2.0 brings More Collaborators
Reality: Anonymity Brings More Collaborators
The Jury is still out on whether the Web 2.0 craze will affect or has affected a significant portion of the population such that the heretofore reluctance many people have for publically expressing an opinion is removed.
It seems certain that most people do have an opinion and most of those opinions are worthy of expression – the promise and hope of Web 2.0 is that it will enable people to express that opinion. Unfortunately, it is sociology not technology that is the greatest barrier. The new Web 2.0 technology brings with it if not anonymity, at least pseudo anonymity hiding behind “handles” or “monikers”. The fear of public ridicule (real or perceived) is quite strong; most of us, it seems, would prefer to be silently right than publically wrong.
This important point seems to be frequently missed. I’m reminded of a colleague’s story (from a previous job) of how a particular page on an important internal site contained obviously outdated and flawed information … “if it were a WIKI then anybody could fix things”. True, they could, but that doesn’t mean they would. If people knew there was no potential consequences for fixing things then some might take the time to make the change – and the easier that process the more likely it will happen, so there is value to WIKIs, however if a modification could bring the real or imagined wrath of MGMT, Legal, HR, etc then the authenticated user will not make the change regardless of the technology.
Authentication brings Accountability – Accountability is the Antithesis of Collaboration (and the Challenge of Enterprise 2.0)
What seems true is that Web 2.0 makes ad-hoc collaboration easier to accomplish, particularly for (semi-)anonymous collaboration. There have been some technical barriers that made some forms of collaboration difficult and Web 2.0 technologies have helped to break down some of those barriers, but not, I’m afraid provide any particular motivation to contribute.
So what sort of person does contribute? As a long-term contributor, a sharer of information, a teacher, and social misfit, I have some notion of what sort of person contributes and why. First, while it may be true that many of us like to know our opinion is heard, understood, and appreciated, most people do not like to be publically ridiculed and will shy away from any opportunities to do so. There are not too many people who actually enjoy the ridicule, to be sure, but some of us are willing to take and/or ignore the abuse believing that on balance the good outweighs the bad.
That is not to say that I or others enjoy being ridiculed nor that the abuse is easy to take – I am in pain with every scathing remark. In fact, if all I got was ridicule then I’d be sure not to post anything at all, but while the abuse is painful at times, the supporting remarks and comments provide a greater joy. Not, as you might think, as pride (at least not for me), rather I genuinely gain pleasure when I feel that I have helped somebody else. My contributions, therefore, are not altruistic but selfish in nature.
My Contributions are Rarely Altruistic
Imagine that, selfishness drives my behaviour, not altruism. I do enjoy helping other people but I help them because I enjoy it, not because I want to do something good for them.
