tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11969255.post304928112978668554..comments2014-09-22T08:18:02.289-05:00Comments on Uncovering Information Labor: Web 2.0 is more than just "you"Greg Downeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09154543464555817869noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11969255.post-2084462129654336802007-06-30T10:17:00.000-05:002007-06-30T10:17:00.000-05:00I agree with a lot of what 'you' had written, but ...I agree with a lot of what 'you' had written, but I would start with a different analysis of the article. The issue devoted to 'you' had a shiny holographic film attached to the cover that was supposed to reflect 'you.' When I looked at my reflection I didn't see myself, I saw an unidentifiable image. I think this provides a good metaphor for the use of 'you' in Web 2.0. 'You' can't be a second person indexical, I believe it may be a trope serving some other purpose. <BR/><BR/>In reference to your previous post about your unease with the term 'information' in information labor and information studies, I think the same unease can be drawn to the 'you' in this article. 'You' isn't a good way to identify what they are referring to; they are substituting it for an intuition or a feeling of something other.<BR/><BR/>Maybe a historical analysis of Time's person of the year would help with the concept of 'you.' Last year, it was Bono and Melinda and Bill Gates. The year before it was George W. Bush. Maybe a more appropriate theme for the article would have been "We're becoming less obsessed with hero worship," or "the big players in society are becoming harder to identify."<BR/><BR/>For me, this article was a clear indication that the person of the year definitely wasn't me, but it wasn't 'you' either.Nathan Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10974101256160947257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11969255.post-58055600393995592802007-06-21T12:43:00.000-05:002007-06-21T12:43:00.000-05:00Web serves for the public; web also servers for se...Web serves for the public; web also servers for selfishness. Ironically, web contributors primarily work for "self" though the aggregated results benefit everybody. One reason underlying the hype of Web 2.0 is because Web 2.0 provides a new way to satisfy selfishness of mankind, as I presented in a <A HREF="http://www.semanticfocus.com/blog/entry/title/satisfying-the-nature-of-selfishness-the-key-to-initiate-the-semantic-web/" REL="nofollow">recent post</A> of mine. <BR/><BR/>But just as you said, Web 2.0 is certainly more than just "selfishness," i.e., "you." I cannot agree more on this addressment. Web 2.0 presents a philosophy that if someone wants to be popular, he must first contribute to the world. It provides an active environment that people can "build" their social network, instead of staying hopelessly aside and begging for the unlikely mercy from the web Gods (i.e. the major web search engines). This is why Web 2.0 is also addressed as an active web by some web researchers. <BR/><BR/>WWW is growing by itself, like living creatures. We humans invented it; we humans dedicate to it; and we humans will eventually rebuild ourselves because of it. This is web evolution.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your post and enjoy reading it.<BR/><BR/>-- YihongYihong Dinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08410466834942147505noreply@blogger.com