Blog Archives

Web 1.0 to Web 2.0: A Brief Evolution of Technical Writing

We are currently in the Web 2.0 World Wide Web era.  It is a concept that was developed by Darcy DiNucci in 1999 and then popularized by Tim O’Reilly.  It is the idea that the internet we engage with now is participatory of social in nature. The date of full Web 2.0 is not exactly determined.  However, we do know that this change occurred in the mid 2000s.  Prior to participatory web (Web 2.0), Web 1.0 is considered a one-way exchange of our information.  While users could search and engage somewhat over the World Wide Web, the information was pushed or projected to the user.  Even most question and answer or company managed chat forums were moderated by the company or organization source.  There were limits to the amount in which users could actually interact with each other or companies.  Web 2.0 introduced World Wide Web users to social media platforms, blogs, and other interactive technologies.  Wikipedia Web 2.0

fullsizeoutput_155

Photo source Wikipedia

The change in internet user engagement also effected technical writing professionals.  The traditional static content of books and Web 1.0 content, now needed to be an interactive, living document.  Digital advancements in technical writing during the Web 1.0 era included creating microgenres of content such as Frequently Asked Questions or online forums and also the PDF that allowed content to maintain its intended form for printing.  Fast forward to Web 2.0, and technical writers are finding themselves becoming technological experts.  Some of the ways technical writers have had to evolve their knowledge and specialties are: learning the digital publishing software tools to create user friendly and accessible content, understand web content and be able to use those platforms to create user-engaging content such as embedded maps, videos, calendars, etc., and to also be able to create engaging micro-content for webpages as opposed to writing long documents or novels.

In additional to content creation and management for general World Wide Web users, e-learning has also opened up many opportunities in technical writing.  In Rachel Spilka’s book, Digital Literacy for Technical Communication (2010), she references that in 2008, the Society for Technical Communication (STC)’s Instructional Design and Learning Special Interest Group has grown significantly and 20% of all STC members belonged to it.  Some technological knowledge required by technical writers in this field include: authoring tools used to create e-learning content such as Dreamweaver, Flash, Captivate, and Illustrator, learning content management systems (LCMS), and learning management systems.

Many other specialty avenues exist for technical writers thanks to the development of Web 2.0.  Although the transitions over the most recent decades have been an uphill battle at times, technical writers have also gained the ability to diversity their career and have more interaction with content consumers.  Web 3.0 is beginning to be rumored about.  This will mean much more Artificial Intelligence involvement into our World Wide Web.  It will be very interesting to see how the technical writing career field evolves involving Artificial Intelligence.  Could it mean more new opportunities or could Artificial Intelligence take over some technical writing roles and responsibilities?  I sure it won’t be long before we begin to transition to Web 3.0 given the rapid advancement of internet technologies.

Web 2.0 and Online Identity Formation

Our readings this week got me thinking about identity-formation, of all things. In “DIY videos on YouTube: Identity and possibility in the age of algorithms” Wolf describes how watching DIY videos can play a role in identity-formation – they can help us asses if we are capable or confident enough to do a task on our own. However, DIY videos aren’t the only activity that can influence our identity; there are many online activities like video games and social media that can also influence our identity.

“You Play World of Warcraft? You’re Hired!”

World of Warcraft – A raid group taking down Vaelastrasz the Corrupt in Blackwing Lair Source: MMO Examiner

In chapter four, Rheingold discusses how World of Warcraft (WoW) can influence our identity and can be seen as a good job training simulator. He says this because players must complete tasks collaboratively with other players if they truly want to engage with the game’s content. I’ve had similar thoughts about WoW because I played this game a lot growing up.

When I played the game, I use to raid hardcore (as they would say). My alliance guild (25+ people) would raid four nights a week and complete high-level dungeons to obtain the best gear and loot. In some cases, we were the first on our server to kill a new raid boss, which comes with its own bragging rights and rewards. These accomplishments don’t carry much merit in the real-world, but completing these collaborative tasks gave me a lot of skills that can be carried over to a work environment.

If I’ve ever felt like I couldn’t do something, I’ve caught myself thinking – “If I’m capable of organizing a raid to kill Yogg-Saron on heroic mode with no guardians, then why can’t I do this job interview or [fill-in-the-name] task?” This might sound silly, but playing World of Warcraft has given me confidence that I can accomplish great tasks and goals in my own life.

I’ve seen how WoW has affected my friends’ lives too. For instance – my guildmate created a bot in the game that would collect valuable materials for him (without him having to be at his computer). Creating this bot required that he learned coding, programming, and many other skills because it required modifying the game. He was eventually banned because creating bots is cheating, but the video game allowed him to refine his engineering skills. He is now a software engineer at a software company in Silicon Valley, which is a very fitting role for him.

I’ve also seen how WoW can destroy lives. There is a stigma that playing online video games means you have no life and are worthless. I’ve seen many of my guildmates get caught up in this lie and often view themselves as worthless and feel they can’t accomplish anything in the real world. To me, it’s incredibly interesting how one game can influence our identity and personality so much.

Lurkers are destroying online collaboration participation. Really?

The value of lurkers, commenters, and creators Source: Lurkers Anonymous

Rheingold discusses how the web has been primarily formed through collaborative efforts of many users. Kusher repeats this sentiment in “Read only: The persistence of lurking in Web 2.0,” where he explores how lurkers pose a threat to this collaboration and participation. At the end of the article, he states: “[lurkers] are the remainder of human activity that fails to conform – deliberately or otherwise – to the capitalist logics that drive Web 2.0.”

I agree and understand his argument, but I don’t agree with the tone that pervades the article and seems to negatively blame lurkers for destroying online participation. I rarely participate in social media activities and discussions, but I would not call my lack of participation as deliberate; I often just don’t feel any desire to comment or be part of the discussion.

However, I feel there are often good reasons to not participate online. I feel companies and social media platforms have ruined participation because they use information you provide (through a simple like or watching a video) as a means to target and influence your behavior through ads. Any information you put online also stays online, permanently – why would I want anyone to be able to pull my information up so easily?

At the same time, I often worry this passive majority isn’t participating where it truly counts. They may not share articles that expose corruption in the real world. They are not vocal when they need to be (like during elections and other highly political times). And social media platforms are doing a good job of making false participation – such as liking a video –  seem more significant than it actually is. We cannot confuse easy participation as real participation.

Where we have been, and where we are going with Web 2.0

Our senators seem to be the only users who don’t understand how Web 2.0 works.

I feel the majority of these articles summarize the main benefits and problems of Web 2.0 accurately. The main difference between when Web 2.0 was coined, and now, is a majority of users know what Web 2.0 is (except our senators, apparently). Your average user understands the danger of the web – we don’t click on random ads, we understand that there are bots trying to talk to us, and we know how our behavior on the Internet is used by others. However – as Reingold points out in chapter 6 – your average user does not know how to use the web mindfully (such as knowing how to use privacy settings and more). Going forward, privacy is going to be more of an issue than before.

I feel web regulation will also be a huge factor going forward. We can see this happening currently, with big tech companies having to testify in front of congress and more. Just the other day, I saw an article explaining that there will be a new California law that states chatbots must disclose that they are bots before continuing a conversation. I feel this is important because even though we are aware that there are bots on the Internet. It is becoming increasingly difficult to know when a bot is speaking to us, especially when it comes to sharing news articles.

I personally don’t know how far these regulations will go. I believe some regulation is necessary, but I also worry about those who will take advantage of the current fear in the political climate and make unnecessary regulations to control the Internet for certain parties.

Web 2.0 vs Health 2.0

I’m relieved to put an end to this semester; taking 6 credit hours and a full-time workload has taken a toll on my health and social life.

Web 2.0

Whether you grew up without internet access and mobile technology or you can’t imagine life without it, Web 2.0 has enabled all of us to contribute, share, participate, respond, and connect to much more information than the last 2000 years put together (I read this somewhere). Emerging media continues to connect more people across the world and disconnect them from the person sitting next to you or across the table. Of all the texts we read in this course, I was most influenced by Sherry Turkle. Yes, it took 15 years to write Alone Together, but it was worth the wait. Because if she had published the book after a year or two, she wouldn’t have made such a dramatic impact. This was a turning point for me; I took a break from Web 2.0 for a couple weeks (except for contributing to this class) to examine how my attention was keeping me away from what was really important – relationships with people.

 

health-20-patient-empowerment-through-innovative-technologies-3-728

SlideShare.net by Sean Mirk

Health 2.0

As Web 2.0 continues to change and evolve faster than ever before, health 2.0 is slowly gaining web presence and connecting with consumers and patients. Health 2.0, as defined by Jane Sarasohn-Kahn (2008), is “the use of social software and its ability to promote collaboration between patients, their caregivers, medical professionals, and other stakeholders in health” (p. 2). I researched the quality of health information found through social media and evaluated whether health information influenced health behaviors. The following is an excerpt from my final research paper. This will also contribute to my final thesis for this program.

Introduction

Where can millions of people access free health information? The answer  – online social media, health communities and health websites. Healthcare has the potential of reaching millions of people to disseminate information about disease prevention, public health awareness campaigns, nutrition and exercise promotion, dietary supplements, new prescription drugs and other health-related information. According to the Pew Research Center (Greenwood, Perrin, and Duggan, 2016), nearly 80% of all adult Americans online use Facebook for news while adults over the age of 65 and women comprise the majority of all social network users. Web technology has enabled more consumers to have direct communication with businesses, medical/health websites, and online health communities to find health information they need for themselves or family members; however, health 2.0 technology has been slow to reach Web 2.0’s capabilities. A study conducted by Jha, Lin and Savoia (2016) analyzed 34 U. S. state health departments’ social media postings on Facebook and found there was very little interaction between the Facebook page and the audience; social networks were only being utilized as a one-way communication tool and oftentimes the information was not relevant to the audience (p. 177).

Problem

As healthcare and health insurance costs increase and research about new procedures and medicine become readily available, more people are becoming their own health advocates and searching for health and medical answers online. People are searching for information about ailments, illnesses such as cold or flu, natural and herbal remedies, dietary supplements, and side effects of prescription drugs. However, with the abundance of health information online it is often difficult to determine its credibility, relevance, and accuracy. The accuracy of information is neither consistent nor reliable across health websites, so how do people know what to believe to make informed decisions about their health or when to seek advice from a physician? Social networks also promote unethical and inaccurate news sites through advertising and social sharing, which reduces the authority and reliability of health information online.

Furthermore, medical professionals, health officials and government entities are not effectively using social networks to disseminate health information for targeted audiences. Thus, online users are not receiving accurate or timely health information to make informed decisions that could be detrimental to themselves or family members.

… the research continues with this topic, I found more articles of interest as I was writing this post, internet sources elude me; however, I hope you have learned to navigate the ever-changing technology during this course.

Happy Holidays and  Congratulations if you are graduating! Fair winds and following seas, as we say in the Navy.

 

 

Filters in the Age of Amateurs

Has the democratization of the Internet turned us all into Kafka-esque cockroaches? Andrew Keen argues yes in his debate with David Weinberger. From Keen’s perspective, the Internet has stripped away traditional filters and given a voice to the masses — and the resulting clamor shows the worst of humanity. Instead of having gatekeepers in the form of publishers and traditional media sources to groom experts and present us with the best, the unaware Internet user is bombarded by amateurs and their trash.

kafka-1-300x256

Image from Books by Audra. http://www.booksbyaudra.com/2016/04/18/considering-kafka/

Weinberger takes the opposing viewpoint that the traditional media filters were flawed, and the Internet offers opportunity for everyday experts and untapped talent. He’s not alone in his assessment. Philip Tetlock created the Good Judgment Project on the premise of nonprofessionals making more accurate predictions than established experts. Tournament style, the project identifies the top two percent of “superforecasters” who don’t have any particular credentials but are amateurs with a knack for making predictions. Through Web 2.0, these individuals are now able to connect and share ideas in a way that was inconceivable just twenty years ago.

Interestingly, most of the articles that I saw about everyone being an expert through the leveling of the Internet were from about five to ten years ago. After that, it stopped being news. Now, it seems that the voice given to the masses is assumed and taken for granted. The last decade has softened it from a potential catastrophe to now just an accepted part of culture.

The twist is that the Internet is both still reliant on traditional gatekeepers and developing new types of filters. As we’ve discussed earlier in this course, the more content is created, the more significant it becomes to navigate and find the right content. Jonathan Zittrain discusses how Google and other search engines have become a de facto filter as people attempt to find material online. Zittrain talks about the tension between “neutral” search algorithms and Google’s moral responsibility to present quality, or at least accurate, sources. His talk acknowledges that most people have a knee-jerk reaction against search engines serving as a “Big Brother” and controlling what you see, but also don’t like the specific examples of overtly wrong or biased sites being at the top of search results. Even though anyone can contribute online, search engines and other tools for navigating the web still provide some basic form of filtering. The questions is how much power should we give them?

Even in light of the massive amount of user-generated content and the new ways of determining what has value, there is still a role for traditional gatekeepers to help audiences from being bombarded. This is good news for Keen who sees “professional intermediaries [as] arbiters of good taste and judgement.” For me, the example that comes to mind is Wikileaks. On one hand, it embodies the ultimate democratization of all information being released to the public online. On the other hand, nobody reads the thousands and thousands of released leaks, and the general public hears about only the top few items of interest as reported by major media outlets. The gatekeepers are still serving to prioritize the information and tell people what they care about.

wikileaks

Wikileaks releases unprecedented amounts of information online, but still relies on traditional filters to make sense of it. The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-data

The New York Times just ran the article “WikiLeaks Isn’t Whistleblowing” that offers a scathing condemnation of the Wikileaks approach to “journalism” and argues that massive data dumps are inappropriate and counterproductive by not offering context for the information or discerning what is necessary to share. Tufecki writes, “Mass data releases, like the Podesta emails, conflate things that the public has a right to know with things we have no business knowing, with a lot of material in the middle about things we may be curious about and may be of some historical interest, but should not be released in this manner.”

Putting aside the other moral and privacy questions raised by Wikileaks, it serves as an extreme example of how the Internet enables a massive amount of content from all types of sources, while we’re still figuring out the role for filtering and gatekeeping. Keen warns that if we don’t find an answer, we’ll soon see the worst of ourselves reflected back in the Internet and discover our true cockroach nature.

References:

Tufecki, Z. (4 Nov. 2016).  Wikileaks isn’t whistleblowing. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/what-were-missing-while-we-obsess-over-john-podestas-email.html

Good Judgment. Accessed 5 Nov. 2016 https://www.gjopen.com/

Andrew Keen is not invited

While reading the debate on Web 2.0 between Andrew Keen and David Weindberger I became quite emotional.  I wanted to reach through the screen to shake some sense into Keen, I almost yelled at my computer, and I definitely shook my head at every Keen response.  I couldn’t help but see how my previous blog “power to the people” was reiterating his points albeit from the opposing point of view.  I maintain the opinion that the internet and the communication that it allows between people offers individuals and society a greater benefit than the previous model that restricted widely accessible information to “gate keepers”.

Keen believes that allowing anyone to comment on published information is a negative.  It allows anonymous users to post negative comments and clutter.  Don’t opposing viewpoints spur conversation that has the potential to lead to a greater understanding of the subject?  He states “the culture business is ugly.  It rewards talent and punishes those that don’t have it”.  He must be referring to Kim Kardashian.  Keen points to the fact that Gore and Reagan having the top two non fiction books on NY Times Best Seller list disproves opinions of the media being a left/right wing racket.  How can two books on a list even speak to that?  It would seem that the country is almost split 50/50 on their political affiliations.  Wouldn’t it also be reasonable to assume that both viewpoints be on the list?

My biggest problem was when Keen was referring to the top 6 blogs (I’m still shaking my head).  Does he honestly think that the same person that read the autobiography on Einstein couldn’t be the same person reading about their iPhone on a blog?  Given that technology is such a big part of our lives, wouldn’t an “intelligent” person also want to read about the products that are coming out, not just technology geeks?  He alludes to wanting his kids to read books from the non fiction list over blogs about how to kiss.  Isn’t having the option to read both non fiction and articles on miscellaneous knowledge better than only having the option to read one of them?  Andrew Keen argues for the old way we received our information because he was on the inside looking out.  Now he must produce a quality product that the masses want to read and he is unhappy about it.  I can only hope he has a social network where he can find like minded individuals to talk about the good old days.