I’ve been thinking about a question we posed in class last week but never really answered: Does the term “social software” encompass so many different programs and venues as to render it meaningless?

I kind of want to argue both ways on this one. First, it does seem that “social software” covers almost everything we do on the internet, from AIM to blogs to MMORPGs to wikis. So in one sense, no, the term isn’t a very useful one if our goal is to distinguish between the different ways in which we use the internet.

However, in another sense, the term “social software” helps identify the common thread between the seemingly disparate things we do on the internet. It’s really all about socializing and communicating, isn't it? Email and blogs and AIM? Obviously about communicating. But wikis? They spark intellectual (and not-so-intellectual, depending on what the entry is) discourse between strangers. Games? They set up characters through whom players communicate with each other. Hypertexts? They communicate an author’s creative vision to readers, who in turn interpret that vision and talk about it with others who have read the hypertext. This came as a revelation to me, although it sure sounds obvious now that I type it out.

I’m in a wonderful class at CMC called “Women’s Magazines and the Female Journalist”, and yesterday our professor arranged a panel of speakers for a lunch at the Athenaeum. These four female journalists—the co-founders of Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture magazine, the editor of Ms. Magazine, and a graduate of Pomona who is a staff writer for the East Bay Express—offered great advice and insight into the world of journalism. They also (and here’s why I’m posting to this) replied to a question about the future of journalism in light of the popularity of reading blogs and news online. Almost all women agreed that they don’t necessarily feel threatened by the web. As one said, ‘I think the rumors of the end of the print word are ridiculously exaggerated.” Of course, it would make sense for them to feel this way because, although their publications have websites, their careers are reliant on print.

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."