Web 2.0 is a phrase that gets bandied about quite a bit these days. If you ask three people what it means you’ll probably get three different answers.

That’s understandable, because there is no official definition.

Tim O’Reilly, the man who popularised the phrase in 2004, describes it as “the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform”.

Kind of vague, but in the context of New Media it refers to the use of the Internet as a means of collaboration, where the audience becomes part of the content creation process.

Think of it this way: Web 1.0 is a one-way street, where the publisher puts up some content and the audience consumes it. Web 2.0 is a two-way street, where the publisher puts up some content and the audience is able to respond to it.

Blogs are one of the earliest and simplest expressions of the Web 2.0 trend as they allow readers to post comments.

Social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and Friendster are all very Web 2.0 because they are designed to encourage interaction among users. Wikis are also a good example of Web 2.0 in action as the content is generated by multiple users.

Web 2.0 has certainly democratised the media. American journalist A.J. Liebling’s famous dictum, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one”, may have been true in his time (he died in 1963) and may have been true right up until the turn of the new century.

But it’s certainly not true today.

Not even in Malaysia.

Mainstream media might still be constrained by the Printing Presses and Publications Act but online media is not. Thanks to Web 2.0, anybody can be a publisher. The result is a blossoming of content.

Where once the Malaysian political blogosphere pretty much consisted of Jeff Ooi, there are now way too many political bloggers to keep track of. There’s some really good stuff out there. There’s also a lot of rubbish. And that’s the chief drawback of the free-for-all nature of Web 2.0.

This point has been well articulated by Nicholas Carr, author of Does IT Matter and The Big Switch. As early as 2005, he was already questioning whether Web 2.0 – with its emphasis on participation, collectivism, virtual communities, and amateurism – is necessarily a good thing.

“I’m all for blogs and blogging,” says Carr. “But I’m not blind to the limitations and the flaws of the blogosphere – its superficiality, its emphasis on opinion over reporting, its echolalia, its tendency to reinforce rather than challenge ideological extremism and segregation.”

Carr acknowledges that mainstream media has its shortcomings, too.

“All the same criticisms can (and should) be hurled at segments of the mainstream media,” he says. “And yet, at its best, the mainstream media is able to do things that are different from – and, yes, more important than – what bloggers can do.”

He’s talking about things like funding in-depth reporting and underwriting projects that can take weeks or even months to reach fruition. It’s also able to hire professional editors and proofreaders.

“Forced to choose between reading blogs and subscribing to, say, the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Atlantic, and the Economist, I will choose the latter. I will take the professionals over the amateurs,” he says.

As a heavy consumer of both blogs and mainstream media, I can’t say I totally agree with Carr.

It really depends on the topics. For mobile research, I find that blogs written by industry experts are far superior to anything I can find in mainstream media. That’s because that topic is too niche for mainstream media.

For politics, if I’m pressed for time, I’d take Malaysiakini and Malaysian Insider (neither of which are very Web 2.0-ish) over the multitude of political blogs out there. There are exceptions, of course. I make it a point to read Rocky’s Bru every day (but then again, that blog is maintained by a former newspaper editor).

A good middle ground might be achieved through Web 3.0 which, like its 2.0 cousin, does not have an official definition. In fact, its meaning is even fuzzier.

But recently, I came across an interesting description by Peter Whitehead, Digital Business Editor at the Financial Times.

He describes it as such: Web 2.0 is a world in which anyone can have a go at generating content; Web 3.0 is where professionals take the lead in shaping that content.

In other words, professionals anchor the content generation process and amateurs participate.

FT Digital Business’ new online Personal View series attempts to do this by asking professionals from across the IT sector to share their opinions on an array of topics.

Each subject will be examined for three weeks, and in the third week there will be space for extra contributions from readers and other professionals.

So, through its Digital Business section, FT is attempting to leap from the old world of Web 1.0, over the messy world of Web 2.0, into the “quality-assured” world of Web 3.0.

Perhaps this is what mainstream media publications in Malaysia should do. Instead of struggling to keep up with Web 2.0, they should just leapfrog to Web 3.0, which is more up their alley. TheStar

Oon Yeoh is already wondering what Web 4.0 will be about. You can reach him at www.oonyeoh.com

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!