Web 2.0 is about “We”, NOT “I”

18 Apr 2007 (Wed)

SOME PEOPLE STILL DON’T GET IT: Web 2.0 is about “We” — “us”, “our”, and “ours” (the wisdom of many) — and NOT about “I”, as in the word “Idol”, — “me”, “my”, and “mine” (the uber-coolness of a select few). Perhaps two of Kathy Sierra’s excellent graphs below (modified slightly) can help to convey the right message:

Creating Passionate Users - Buy this because…

 

Creating Passionate Users - Caring about the users

Share and Enjoy:
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Diigo
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MSN Reporter
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print
Similar Posts:

Posted by J.K. in Media, Social Media, Technology, Visual | View Comments |

  • http://coolinsights.blogspot.com Walter

    Agree with your post about the communal nature of social media and why it shouldn’t just be the domain of a few prima donnas. However, it may be interesting to note the 1% rule which was very elegantly explained by Ben McConnell of Church of the Customer here.

    It is still not a totally democratic system in the 2.0 universe which is why there are A-list, B-list and other categories of bloggers. Like in any business system, first movers tend to have an advantage over others. Popularity is also not equally spread although it is certainly now a much fairer game.

  • http://www.NETCoachAsia.com J.K.

    Sharp observations, Walter. I agree with you partially. It’s natural that over time, some will rise above the others because of a few possible reasons:

    1. For practical reasons: One simply cannot be listening to everyone (or reading their blogs, etc.) most of the time. So, gradually, more and more people will start deferring to a select few.
    2. For psychological reasons: Intrinsically, we all have a need to worship something or someone. Otherwise, there seems to be little meaning in life. (Interesting that the article you quoted is from a blog called “Church of the Customer” AND that the cinema and/or theater has been termed “the Church of the Masses”, right? ;-) )
    3. For political reasons: Some people rise to the top not because of “substance” but because of “style” (they simply managed to present themselves really well and/or manipulate statistics to their advantage) or “connections” (they knew the right people at the right time).

     

    Nevertheless, to emphasize “I kickass” is basically not in the spirit of Web 2.0 or the wisdom of crowds. What’s needed by everyone are perhaps better aggregators of individual intelligence.

  • http://www.teascoop.com green tea

    Yeah new bloggers like me and many others need a chance to sprout!

    Maybe it might happen now:)

  • http://www.NETCoachAsia.com J.K.

    Hey, Walter. Upon closer reading, actually the The 1% Rule in the article you quoted is not referring to domination by a select few but rather a principle:

    Roughly 1% of your site visitors will create content within a democratized community.

    Hehe! The hazards of speed-reading. Still, I think I know what you meant and I’ve answered it.

blog comments powered by Disqus

sikis izle, porno izle, seks videolari, porno seyret,Turkce Pornolar, Yesilcam Pornolari, genc kiz Pornosu izle, Bedava sikis izle, seks izle, pornolar, liseli sikis, sikis, porno,adult video,adult sikis, Yesilcam Porno,

r57.txt, r57shell, r57 shell, r57, c99.txt, c99shell, c99 shell, c99.txt