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:
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Furl
  • NewsVine
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • YahooMyWeb
Similar Posts:

Posted by J.K. in Media, Social Media, Technology, Visual | blog reactions | |

Response

4 Comments »

• COMMENTS SO FAR:

  1. Walter says:
    April 22nd, 2007 at 7:47 am

    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.

  2. J.K. says:
    April 22nd, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    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.

  3. green tea says:
    May 2nd, 2007 at 6:45 am

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

    Maybe it might happen now:)

  4. J.K. says:
    May 4th, 2007 at 1:36 am

    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.

 

• ADD A COMMENT:

Hi! I love getting your comments, especially on-topic questions, opinions, experiences or insights. In fact, if I'm impressed by your comment, I might write a post that link to some useful content on your blog. However, personal attacks (on anyone) and inane comments will be deleted or sent to my Spam filter. (For off-topic messages, Contact Me or just "Shout".)

NOTE: Comments are moderated on a daily or even weekly basis here. If your comment does not appear immediately, there is no need to resubmit it.