Friday, May 16, 2008
If Business Standard wanted to communicate somebody's opinion on the definition of Web 2.0 to its readers, it should have paid some royalty and published O' Reilly's definition as a 5 part series and be done with it. He did the "Web 2.0 can do something. We really don't know what it is yet. But this is what I think it is" plug very well. People have been quoting O' Reilly since the sangam period. Publishing second hand stuff like this that weakly rephrases what somebody else had attempted to rephrase devalues other concepts such as 'salary' and 'newspaper-fame'. My biggest problem with the article was that there wasn't anything 'original' written that stemmed from from the author's experience of working on such web 2.0 concepts. Secondly, it did not seem to touch the core of topic and I was left wondering - "so what. This is fluff?"
While this may impress 'give me 5 of those' type people and prompt them to do the web 2.0 thing - this could also inflict damage on intelligent readers, who aren't tuned into web 2.0, causing them to form theories that sound something like: "My physics teacher in thookunayakampettipalayam didn't explain physics very well to me. So physics is all fluff".