Writing Machines is the course website for English 170L at Pomona College in Claremont, California.
Web 3.0
Could the entire web one day be less like a catalogue and more like an incredibly knowledgable, helpful person? This is the possibility that is driving proponents of a new movement, Web 3.0, which I read about in a New York Times article this morning. Apparently, our current web is version 2.0, and is characterized by its ability to seamlessly link many different documents, pages, and forms of media. Web 3.0 refers to adding a new layer to the web-- that of semantic meaning, or 'intelligence.'
The author of the article explains, "Their projects often center on simple, practical uses, from producing vacation recommendations to predicting the next hit song. But in the future, more powerful systems could act as personal advisers in areas as diverse as financial planning, with an intelligent system mapping out a retirement plan for a couple, for instance, or educational consulting, with the Web helping a high school student identify the right college."
Now this kind of a web would be cool. I mean, effective Google-ing has become an art of sorts, because you need to know what different combinations of words to search for in order to produce the sites you want. But with Web 3.0, even non-tech-savvy people would have access to the most helpful sites-- and computers would even put different sites together to give you an answer that was specifically tailored to your request. Now, a few tech snobs might be displeased with this increase in web democracy, but I think overall, everyone would benefit.
Web 3.0 proponents see this information being indexed associatively (no big surprise there) and gathered by scouring (aptly enough, for this week's class) social software sites. Now, no one has actually produced much (beyond Flickr and del.icio.us, of course) that would be considered Web 3.0, but several smart entrepreneurs are working on it, so I wouldn't be surprised if some pretty neat programs and projects start appearing in the next few years.
Update
Update:
Digg.com (a tech-focused news aggregator) is already wise to the New York Times, it seems. They have linked to and described the article I wrote about in my above post as Ready to Get Annoyed: The NYT is throwing the term Web 3.0 around already.
There are quite a few scornful comments on the discussion board about the Times ("a clueless geezer-run relic still suck in Web .5 with their prehistoric login requirements") and about the non-tech-savvy masses ("Web 2.0 was a term invented by a bunch of middle aged losers that decieded [sic] to write their personal feelings in pseudo-journals called Blogs. This community of bloggers surged in the early 21st century, and the term web 2.0 was invented by the iTune enslaved bloggers to make their otherwise untechnical grasp on the internet sound somewhat more technical. As if social networking or blogs are new concepts, they aren't, theyre just new names for things that have been done on the internet for decades. Thanks to Dell for making cheap computers accessible to any idiot.")
There are some more thoughtful comments if you scroll futher down the page. It's just interesting to see that the tech world's reaction to the mainstream media paying attention to them is one of annoyance. They treat the NYT as if it doesn't have the right to write about such things, not being insiders and all.


Recent comments
1 year 28 weeks ago
1 year 28 weeks ago
1 year 28 weeks ago
1 year 28 weeks ago
1 year 28 weeks ago
1 year 29 weeks ago
1 year 29 weeks ago
1 year 29 weeks ago
1 year 29 weeks ago
1 year 29 weeks ago