Jason Calacanis’s new definition of web 3.0 comes across as an elitist statement that leaves little room for everyone else. That a leader in the Web 2.0 industry, an entrepreneur, manager, and heavy participant in web 2.0 should come out with an elitist statement means that he is further removed from reality than we originally thought.
Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform. Source: calacanis.com
So we are not sure if he did this for link bait, or if he intentionally tried to piss off a lot of people who blog for every other reason than what his opinion is. While opinions are good, it would be tragic if his elitist statement shut down the voices of people who do blog, or are thinking of blogging.
The sad part is that once you have pinned your brain on the elitist statement, he goes on to say something near responsible. Moreover, something that he is being right about, that the problems that have happened around anonymous user comments and postings is something that needs to be addressed. What he forgets is that some people do censor or just not post comments that do not add to the overall value of the discussion. Even he has admitted that he does the same thing if it is unflattering or hostile to him.
That is the weird thing, what starts off as elitist ends up being ok. But he does need to understand that few people are “gifted”, few people are always going to crank out “high quality content”, and that while we have good days and bad days, as a leader in the web 2.0 world, what he says carries a lot of weight.
Generally his encapsulated definition should be rejected, because people have their voices, and they have the ability (not yet the full right) to speak on the internet. We have to remember that, the internet is about the people who are on it, good and bad, articulate and not. There has to be a point where anonymity cannot cover a crime, but there has to be a way that people can speak their voices.
We vote to reject Jason’s definition because it is elitism, and in general will come to no tangible good or value in the longer run.
2 comments ↓
Note: I only delete comments that are vulgar and/or anonymous. Folks can take me on any time if they use their real name and keep the curse words in check (i got nieces and nephews on my blog, etc). Note2: folks are welcome–obviously–to got buck wild on their blogs and curse me out.
Note3: Sorry if my definition wasn’t perfect.. it was the start of the discussion.
Note4: Using the word “official” in the headline was a joke… a reference to the obvious limitation of expertise and the balance the market needs to obtain between the wisdom of crowds and reverence for the gifted–something we don’t have now. Today, folks take the wisdom of anonymous crowds over experts a little too much in my mind. The pendulum needs to swing back.
Jason, I have no problems with deleting comments, many do not make it through screening, either automated or personal, as I really want to keep comments on track. Although if it is a good comment, and appropriate but anonomyous, we will let them through. That is a choice that all web masters and bloggers should be making for themselves.
Interesting way to start a discussion, most people have thought of Web 3.0 as the semantic web, using an RDF framework to develop individual chains of trust about content, not something by the gifted for the rest of the proletariat. What you have proposed by your definition is nothing less than the model we have with academia today, ivory tower, bow to my wonderful words because I am better than you. Its not a good place to start, opens you up to charges, and doubts on your grip to what is happening outside the tower.
You might want to update your article then, because you are taking a killing in the blogosphere today because of that title.
Techwag.
Leave a Comment