-
Differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0(1)
- Mode: Reading vs writing and contribute; Agency generated vs user generated content, collaboration, & user involvement; Client-server vs peer to peer
- Companies vs communities; Advertising vs word of mouth,reviews; Lectures vs conversations
- Architecture: Desktop as platform vs internet, web services as platform
- State: static, Closed controlled and centralized vs dynamic, open, shared, expansive
- Domain of…: webcoders, Technology and functions vs everyone, mass amatuerization, People and expressions
- Viewed through…: Web browser vs Browsers, RSS Readers, anything
-
Differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0(2)-1.0 era
- register a domain name,
- set up a server,
- signed up an account with
- use FrontPage or Dreamweaver
- The site will have text interspersed with images, and a handful of link to other related sites
- Changing the content is a hassle.
-
Differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0(2)-2.0 era
He will go to WordPress or Blogger
Word editing software is running on the server side
insert a simple code to add the objects to his blog
keep a top 10 list of his most-played songs with Last.fm
keep track of his blog’s visitors and listed their names
allow his readers to subscribe to his writings and alerts subscribers whenever a new post appears on the site
make money by Google’s AdSense service
-
- Wiki: WikiWikiWeb
- Blog
- User generated content: Amazon.com has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides
- Sociality on the Web
- RSS, XML, CSS
- Social networking services
- Network effect
-
New Web 2.0 services
Overall ease of use
Scale and scope of participation
Folksonomies
Ruby on Rails & Ajax(script language)
Mashups
-
- The web as platform
- Services not packages
- Perpetual Beta
- viral marketing
- decentralization
- collaboration
- user generated content
-
Meme map of web 2.0: Services not packages & Perpetual Beta
Forever test version
No final version
-
Meme map of web 2.0: viral marketing
Word-of-mouth
Gang Nam Style
-
The foundation and experience attributes of Web 2.0
co-creation
remixability
decentralization
emergent system
-
The foundation and experience attributes of Web 2.0: co-creation
Collaboration
People modify information on Wiki
-
The foundation and experience attributes of Web 2.0: remixability
- Mashup
- Google map+openrice
-
The foundation and experience attributes of Web 2.0: decentralization
Bypass traditional channel
Leveling off; everyone is equal
Everyone has their say
-
The foundation and experience attributes of Web 2.0: scalability
Increasing output(more efficient) without incurring much additional cost
Due to network effect
-
Principles of wikinomics: peering
horizontal, not hierarchical;
leveraging self-organization
egalitarianism is the general rule for motivation
-
Principles of wikinomics: sharing
expanding markets to create new opportunities
-
Principles of wikinomics: openness
Transparent: Open Content (Blogs, Wikis, Creative Common)
Freedom: Software (Open Source Software); Open Data (Mashups)
Access: Open Knowledge (OpenCourseWare, Digital library)
-
Web 2.0 - Jaron Lanier’s criticism of Web 2.0
undervalue humans in favor of anonymity and crowd identity; Collectivism diminish uniqueness of individual
emphasizing quantity over quality.
A healthy society need gatekeeper.
hive mind mentality (conformity group think; no diversity; think alike)
Sharing intellectual property is akin to communisms
No creativity only rehashed content(recycled materials)
“fake friendship” on social network
Pseudo democratic - is less about the underlying values of democracy and more about mob-rule - i.e. what is right is not guided by principles but by the loudest voices; lost rationality
-
Web 2.0 detractors Andrew Keen
Garage band; Justin Bieber
amateurism has eroded our culture
the distinction between expert and amateur is being obscured
only the loudest and the extreme dominate
knowing everything about one thing is more important
naked for all to see; disorient us; afflict us with sense of vertigo
the more "connected" we become, the more alone and alienated we become.
Age of Exhibitionism
-
Web 2.0 detractors Evgeny Morozov
authoritarian governments are effectively using the Internet to suppress free speech, hone their surveillance techniques, disseminate cuttingedge propaganda, and pacify their populations with digital entertainment
Cyber-utopians have spawned a dangerous illusion by suggesting the world can blog, tweet, Facebook, YouTube and Google its way to democracy and freedom.
the Internet “empowers the strong and disempowers the weak.”
Counter: Arab Spring Revolt
-
Definition of network effect
The value of a product increases as the number of users increases
-
Sources of network effect
Exchange: product involves at least 2 users
Staying power: The long-term viability of a product or service; Networks with greater numbers of users; Help by switching cost(Microsoft Windows)
Complementary benefits: Products or services that add additional value to the network(ipod)
-
Network structure of network effect
One side market: instant messaging
Two-sided market: eBay(buyers and sellers); Windows(users and developers)
-
- Niche markets gives opportunities to provide products and services to a group that other businesses have overlooked
- the niche strategy of selling a large number of unique items in relatively small quantities
- about catering to individual taste & desire through abundance of choice
-
- longer tail
- fatter tail
- narrowing of the head
-
Long tail and web 2.0: longer tail
- Democratize the tools of production
- Everyone is able to make their own content
- The traditional line between producers and consumers has blurred
- eg. Wikipedia peer production, Garage band, GalaxyZoo.org
-
Long tail and web 2.0: fatter tail
- Democratize the tools of distribution
- More access to the niche
- Eg. Internet newspaper; Lulu.com ->Self distribution site; CNN i-report
-
Long tail and web 2.0: narrowing of the head
- Virtually connect centralized supply and scattered demand(zero inventory)
- Eg. Google search engine lowers search cost and minimize hassle
- Amazon recommendations and customer reviews reduce wrong turns
-
How search engine works: 3 components
- Automated web browser (Spider) follows every www link on a website, collects analyzes the page and parse the words
- Index (create a catalog) and stored
- Query processor: A program that receives your search request, compares it to the entries in the index, and returns results to you; Manages the relevance and ranking
-
History of search engine [Archie & Alta Vista]
- Archie: Searchable directory of FTP files;
- Searched FTP Servers and indexed their files
- User searched the Index
AltaVista: full-text database of a large part of WWW; efficient search; search tips and advanced search features
Up til now: ranking based on "on-page factors“; results were often filled with irrelevant content, spam, and other kinds of malicious material; influenced heavily by marketers with big budgets
-
Search engines and political analogy
AltaVista – anarchy; chaos as everyone can cheat by putting up tags
Yahoo (web directory) – planned economy
Google – people’s power
-
How PageRank works and why is it effective
- based on the number and quality of pages linking to a page; links as votes for the relevance of a page(WoC)
- popularity context
- reason for effectiveness:
- captures of entire importance of all link information of the Web
- mathematically solvable for billions of web pages
- immune to manipulation
-
Database of intentions: meaning
- Each search offers a hint of what an individual wants to accomplish
- a massive database of desires, needs, wants, and likes that can be discovered, tracked, and exploited to all sorts of ends
- Reveals social trends and cutlure
- used for prediction by marketers
-
Database of intentions in 2010: the four signals
- The query-what I want(Google, Yahoo!, Bing)
- The social graph-who I am, who I know(Facebook, LinkedIn, Google)
- The status update-what im doing, what’s happening?(Facebook, Twitter, Google)
- The check-in-where I am(foursquare, yelp)
-
Definition of Collective intelligence [pay attention only to the key terms]
- the capacity of human community …through collaboration(to pool knowledge, collaborate through
- research, debate interpretations) and innovation
- It is a form of universally distributed(decentralized) intelligence… coordinated(organized) in real time…
- Eg. Kasparov versus the world
-
Collective behavior in ant colony
- Can explore vast areas without global view of the ground; find the food and bring it back to the nest:
- search for food randomly
- Leave “pheromones” behind them wherever they go, marking the area as explored and communicating to the other ants that the way is known
- Other ants follow pheromone highways to food
-
Collective behavior in ant colony & double bridge experiment
- Will converge to the shortest path:
- Ants choose randomly one of the two bridges
- Some take the longer, some the shorter
- Ants take the shorter bridge return earlier
- Short bridge receive earlier pheromones and attracts earlier more ants
- => Ants find the shortest way to food
-
Types of problems that WoC are good at
- Cognition-market judgment, prediction of future events in technology/politics(newsfutures), Who wants to be millionaire?
- Cooperation-networks of trust, eg. open source software, P2P business, cutting pollution,SETI@Home
- Coordination-coordinating collective actions, eg. Rendezvous point, queuing up(Self organizing dynamics, converges over time)
-
The four conditions for wise crowds
- Diversity of opinion/knowledge
- Independence
- Decentralization
- Aggregated results
- (incentive mechanism)
-
Why sometimes crowds are dumb
- Information cascade and groupthink
- Social dilemma
- Coordination failures
-
Why sometimes crowds are dumb: Information cascade, herd behavior
- only some are actually contributing while everyone else imitates or conforms to maintain harmony
- men go mad in crowds and only recover senses slowly one-by-one
- prone to believe the false
- Remedy – mechanism that foster diversity and independence
-
Why sometimes crowds are dumb: tragedy of commons
- some parts contribute and the others slack off
- when group faced with prioritizing either short-term selfish interests or the long-term interests
- Remedy – Incentives must be carefully structured to reward individual participation
-
Why sometimes crowds are dumb: coordination failure
- the parts’ contribution interfere with or cancel each other
- Remedy – evolving structures and practices that coordinate individual contribution
-
- isolated inputs vs the process of knowledge production
- aggregate anonymously produced data, seeing the wisdom emerging when a large number of
- people each enter their own calculations without influencing each other's findings. Vs deliberative process that occurs in online communities as participants share information, correct and evaluate each other's findings, and arrive at a consensus understanding
-
Topology of problem solving on the internet
- Crowdsourcing vs. outsourcing
- Open but the company keeps intellectual property vs closed
- No employee vs external employee
- No team vs team can change
- Management is crucial vs more flexible management
- Negligible cost
- Crowdsourcing vs. outsourcing
- Open but the company keeps intellectual property vs closed
- No employee vs external employee
- No team vs team can change
- Management is crucial vs more flexible management
- Negligible cost vs lower cost
- Both depends on the work done outside traditional company walls
-
Topology of problem solving on the internet
- Open-ended
- Individual answers.yahoo.com
- Naver.com Case Lego
- Collective TED’s translation project Open source
-
Crowdsourcing application
- questions
- distributed innovation
- prediction market
- Crowdfunding
- content rating
- micro task
- innovation prize
-
Crowdsourcing application: questions
- answers.yahoo.com
- naver.com
-
Crowdsourcing application: distributed innovation
- a marketplace for business projects
- solvers: cash and answers
- seeker firms: IP and problems
- ink-jet method for printing edible images on cakes and cookies adopted by P&G’s Pringles Print
- getting fluoride into toothpaste tubes
- design of a solar-powered wireless router
- yet2.com and Shanghai Silicon IP Exchange: marketplace for IP exchange, brokers technology transfer
-
Crowdsourcing application: innovation prize
- Goldcorp: explore potential goldmine, 110 new targets, 50% previously unidentified and 80% yielded gold, company worth raised
- Netflix: improve its Web site’s movie recommendation system, customer retention rate; gain access to the Netflix data
- Threadless: Competition Platform; T-shirts are determined by an online contest; Submissions are posted on the website and scored; financial gain is secondary to seeing name on T-shirt
-
Crowdsourcing application: content rating
- making users organize existing content by inbound links + peer voting
- Diggs and reddit: vote on articles sites
- Stumbleupon: vote on articles sites
-
Crowdsourcing application: prediction market
- Hollywood Exchange: Predict trends by inviting users to submit and vote on ideas; users bet on the ups and downs of celebrity careers or movies
- Marketocracy: finding the best investors and tapping their collective knowledge to create a superior mutual fund; launched the Masters 100 Index, a real mutual fund based on the virtual investments of its 100 most successful members; outperformed the S&P 500 Index
-
Crodwsourcing application: crowdfunding
- Asking crowd to donate a defined amount of money for a specific cause within a predetermined timeframe.
- If your goal is not met, all donation are refunded
- Kickstarter: all-or-nothing online pledge system for funding creative projects; Backers get something out of it (collateral) and people don't give up ownership of their ideas; iPod Nano watches; 3 projects have made over $1 million
-
Crowdsourcing application: micro task
- perform tasks that computers are currently unable to do.
- Amazon Mechanical Turk :On-demand, scalable, real-time workforce
-
Not so successful examples of crowdsourcing: Gambrian house and assignment zero
- Cambrian House: organize the crowd around ideas for Websites and software products; Lack founding teams
- MyFootballClub: running a soccer club in a crowdsourced style
- Local Motors' Rally Fighter: the first car openly developed and built using crowd-sourcing
-
- Defined vocabulary vs Personal vocabulary
- Meaning per the author vs Meaning to the reader
- Top-down vs Bottom-up
- Central control vs Democratic creation
- Restrictive vs Expansive
- Navigation vs Discovery
- Accurate vs Good enough
- Structure vs Messy
- Efficiency vs Difficult Findability
- Solid foundation vs Slow to emerge
- Resource intensive vs Relatively inexpensive
- Not emergent vs Emergent by nature
-
- No need to learn difficult formal classification system
- Lower cost of categorization: Distributes cost of tagging over large population
- Open ended: can respond quickly to changes
- Relevance: User’s own terms
- Easy to tag any object: photo, document, bookmark
-
disadvantages of folksonomy
No structure, no conceptual relationships
Issues of scale – popular tags already showing a million hits
Polisemy (same tag used with different meaning)
Synonyms (different tags with the same meaning)
Plural vs Singular
Acronyms
Limited applicability – only useful for non-technical or nonspecialist domains
Most people cant tag very well – learned skill
Personal tags that others cant find
Errors – misspellings
-
Characteristics of emergent system
Self-organization
Bottom up
Multiple “agents” dynamically interacting, oblivious to any higher-level instructions
Finally a higher level pattern arising out of complex interactions among the “agents”-coalesce
The system is adaptive because it grow smarter over time and respond to the specific and changing needs of the environment
-
michael jackson and long tail
- infinite menu of options
- very artist has to compete with thousands
- star field is more crowded than it has ever been(production)
- the variety of routes to stardom keep growing.(distribution)
- People who buy music tend these days to buy— or steal it — online
-
new groupthink and dumb crowd
- overtaken our workplaces, our schools and our religious institutions.
- Privacy also makes us productive.
- Solitude can even help us learn
- decades of research show that individuals almost always perform better than groups in both quality and quantity, and group performance gets worse as group size increases.
- brainstorming sessions are one of the worst possible ways to stimulate creativity.
- electronic brainstorming
- The protection of the screen mitigates many problems of group work
- we can be alone together
-
crowdsourcing-aggregating and organizing knowledge.
- Ushahidi.com: earthquake in Haiti, Creole-speaking volunteers in the U.S. instantly translated reports of buried/missing persons and reports sent to rescuers from Red Cross; map obstacles like stuck cars and toppled trees during snow emergencies
- tracked reports of election fraud in Mexico, damage caused by the Gulf oil spill and critical shortages of important medicines at public health clinics in Uganda
- not to just give information to official work crews, but to allow ordinary citizens to organize themselves.
-
crowdsourcing-aggregating ideas-openideo.com
- posts various challenges
- financial sponsor
- collects random ideas from the public
- asks readers to refine the ideas
- The public then votes
- mirrors a brainstorming process
- other than a source of money
- They want to be thought of as creative, thinking people
-
fourth quadrant innovation
- collaborative, nonproprietary innovation
- lack of traditional economic rewards
- barriers for innovation are lower
- increased connectivity
- free to flow from mind to mind without complex business development deals or patent lawyers
- Kickstarter: allows individuals to fund creative projects;
- People are “investing” in others not for the promise of financial reward, but for the social rewards of supporting important work.
- decentralized network of support
|
|
