Collective Intelligence
Collective collaboration
Evolution of Web 2.0 and Social Networking
Nowadays people often throw around these jargon terms like Web 2.0 or Social Networking. What do these terms actually mean? In order to have a basic understanding of these terms or concepts, it has to be broken down into three steps. Firstly, in the early and mid-90’s, websites “spoke” to website visitors and that was it. The websites had information and they provided it to the visitors and that is all that happened, hence one-way communication. That was effectively in a sense “Web 1.0”. Then in second half of the 90’s and into the early 2000’s Web 2.0 was introduced. Web 2.0 is when the website “speaks” to the website visitors and allows the visitors to “speak” back to the website. This is by some means user generated content. People could upload, write and edit things, and contribute content and the alike. This is thus two-way communication when compared to Web 1.0 which is one-way. Social networking on the other hand is the next step. It is enabled through Web 2.0. According to Valacich and Schneider (2012, p. 245) a social network is a platform where individuals with a broad and diverse set of interests meet and collaborate. The website speaks to the visitors, allows the visitors to speak back to the website and facilitates the conversation between the members (visitors). For this reason three-way communication. The users could perform user generated content as well as communicate with each other. That is Social networking. Examples of this are Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and the alike.
Enhancing Collective Collaboration through Web 2.0 and Social Networking
As mentioned in the previous sub-topic, Web 2.0 enables collaboration. All organisations are formed on the notion that their members can do more together than they could do individually. Individuals are frequently collaborating on many different activities such as writing a textbook, working on projects, and so forth. In an
Evolution of Web 2.0 and Social Networking
Nowadays people often throw around these jargon terms like Web 2.0 or Social Networking. What do these terms actually mean? In order to have a basic understanding of these terms or concepts, it has to be broken down into three steps. Firstly, in the early and mid-90’s, websites “spoke” to website visitors and that was it. The websites had information and they provided it to the visitors and that is all that happened, hence one-way communication. That was effectively in a sense “Web 1.0”. Then in second half of the 90’s and into the early 2000’s Web 2.0 was introduced. Web 2.0 is when the website “speaks” to the website visitors and allows the visitors to “speak” back to the website. This is by some means user generated content. People could upload, write and edit things, and contribute content and the alike. This is thus two-way communication when compared to Web 1.0 which is one-way. Social networking on the other hand is the next step. It is enabled through Web 2.0. According to Valacich and Schneider (2012, p. 245) a social network is a platform where individuals with a broad and diverse set of interests meet and collaborate. The website speaks to the visitors, allows the visitors to speak back to the website and facilitates the conversation between the members (visitors). For this reason three-way communication. The users could perform user generated content as well as communicate with each other. That is Social networking. Examples of this are Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and the alike.
Enhancing Collective Collaboration through Web 2.0 and Social Networking
As mentioned in the previous sub-topic, Web 2.0 enables collaboration. All organisations are formed on the notion that their members can do more together than they could do individually. Individuals are frequently collaborating on many different activities such as writing a textbook, working on projects, and so forth. In an
Bibliography: (2012, January 30). Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29. Breslin, J., & Decker, S. (2007). IEEE Internet Computing Magazine. The future of social networks, 11(6), 86-90. Cañas, A., Wilson, D., & Leake, D. (2009). Managing, Mapping, and Manipulating Conceptual Knowledge1. 1. Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K., & Sudzina, F. (2009, July 7). Personal Knowledge Management. The role of Web 2.0 tools for managing knowledge at individual and organisational levels, 33(6), 1-2. Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm Sierhuis, W. (2009). Knowledge Management, 2. Valacich, J., & Schneider, C. (2012). In Information Systems Today (5th ed., pp. 264-307). England: Pearson Eduation Limited. Valacich, J., & Schneider, C. (2012). In Information Systems Today (5th ed., pp. 222-263). England: Pearson Education Limited. Valacich, J., & Schneider, C. (2012). In Information Systems Today (5th ed., pp. 264-307). England: Pearson Eduation Limited. 7