T-Log

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/10/real_sharing_vs.html

“What Web 2.0 is in fact?” I think this is the question that many “web 2.0 learner” came up when they first come across with web 2.0, or have general knowledge of Web 2.0. But I agree with what Lessig suggested and Tim O’Reilly commented on what Lessig said: Some site look like or perform like Web 2.0 but they may not necessily really Web 2.0.

On the lecture, some classmate mentioned YouTube is Web 2.0 site while Lessig raise our mind that, is it really web 2.0? According the definition, Web 2.0 empharizes content sharing, but from Lessig’s point of view, the sharing provided by YouTube is not “truly sharing”. Youtube user provides space for video uploading, but user cannot retrieve their original video file. And the video shared among the public thorugh a provided embed HTML tag using table. People just able to load the video through the site but hardly to load the original file. It seems to be a “no so truly sharing” platform in stead of a truly sharing one.

O’Reilly states it is actually depend on how people look at “true sharing”:

Even “fake sharing” is better than no sharing, which is what we had before.
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/10/real_sharing_vs.html

He continues states Google Book Search as he example of how so-called Web 2.0 proider may not necessary, but onwardly he stats that people are also trying their ever hard to purpose the true sharing.

To arguing whether a site is web 2.0 or to say a site supposed to be web 2.0 not a web 2.0 one is meaning less. For sure that there are still many ways to interpret a site that is Web 2.0, by all mean to make a site to enhance end-user experience is already what Web 2.0 suppose the web to be.

I don’t know how lecturer and tutor comment on this, I wish to see anyone comment on this issue.