user generated revolution? Thanks forums, geocities and aol!

What is next? 3.0 will eliminate the need for us to organize the oceans of information, and 4.0 should bring conscious computers and human/pc integration. It’s gonna be great!

i forgot angelfire.

“devolution of information”

You’ll have to clarify this one; in the common sense of devolution, power is transferred from central governments to satellite or local ones. If you mean by analogy the transfer of the voice of minimal authority from large publishers to bloggers, then that would be the devolution of information production (information itself hasn’t devolved, there’s no one to devolve it to begin with).

If you mean by devolution the secondary sense of degeneration, or general tendency towards crapitude, then I wonder how compatible this statement is with pretty much everything TechCrunch has published thus far on the revolutionary aspects of Web 2.0 and the inescapable demise of large information publishers.

Which of these meanings were you intending to convey ?

Everything else exist on web. What fits WEB3.0?

Louis-Eric
wow

I meant devolution from centrally controlled dissemination to many. We no longer must rely on big media or Government for our information. I make no comment as to whether this is a good or bad thing in this post (you mention authority, that’s an argument for another day) but simply note that the internet has heralded a change in how we can distribute and receive information…which I think is a fairly accurate observation…at least I’m not sure anyone would argue with the premise.

Timewaster (#5)
the $66m question. If we have everything what can be new? The popular theory is semantics so that would be ways of interacting with information, but it doesn’t reinvent information in itself…. now this is getting deep. It’s the weekend, enjoy the video and I’ll think about it some more on Monday

Can anyone send me WEB 3.0 graphic design?

Can you use downshadow logo on web 3.0?

I don’t know know how to say this. If people create new WEB 3.0 hype next year or three years in the future — it would trigger new age wars or Civil wars in countries or World War III… Wikipedia had timemachine message about world war III (nuclear image). If Web 3.0 didn’t exist. We would create peaceful solution.

My educated guess is try not to spread WEB 3.0 hype too fast…. Just wait.. Wait until Web 3.0 ran out business.

Web 3.0 is defined as when Britney Spears gets another child… the popularity of sites like TMZ and all this gossip (social networking sites) can only lead towards a further dumbing down of useless content to distract all of us from what is really important in life.

Of course, Web 3.0 can also be defined as the ability to filter out all this useless content… depends on which way the viral wind blows. Regardless, the next revolution will be internetalized.

Jon

Did Timewaster (#9) really just say that Web 3.0 is going to trigger World War III?

Awesome.

Just curious, how this model will look like when unstructured information will give way to structured information giving new height to the intelligent computing ? Is this is really the the time of this extension though we’ve still not utilized the web 2.0 model in full strength?

There’s still a shelf.

Now we call it a server.

Is it information or …
… is it a set of opinions?
… is it a set of baseless opinions?
… is it a set of uninformed assertions from ignorant idiots?
… is it a set of lies from an organized force with evil intentions?
… is it carefully crafted misinformation?

How can you tell?

Can you believe something written?

Can you believe a picture? Has it been ’shopped?

Can you believe a video?

Can you believe anything?

What is the basis for belief? For trust?

If this is the future, I am scared. For all of us.

If there is a Web3.0, I hope that trust and validation techniques are at its core.

The video reminded me of this proposed use of Mechanical Turk, Seeing Eye People

http://www.headblaze.com/archives/28

I remember was in college in 2001. I saw septemeber 11th attacks on TV. There are some college student and professors laugh and cheer about attacks. They weren’t muslims. One guy clapped about George W. Bush revenge speech. Other student laughed. I hope someone videotape it.

@11….
I didn’t say Web 3.0 “is going” to trigger WW3. I wrote — “It ‘would’ trigger new age wars or Civil wars in countries or World War III”. You said it.

As my wife and I just finished watching the video, she said simply, ‘It is like poetry’. This is in regards to the both the video and the message.

The companies that don’t understand how this shift in information is / has occurred, will certainly falter (MSM anyone). We now contribute, create, police, monitor and utilize the information that is out there. There are a significant possibilities that this creates, but there are also huge concerns. Who is policing and monitoring? What are their motivations.

My belief is that you need to ensure that enough people are engaged to simply far outnumber those who would use these new tools in detrimental ways. Wikipedia is obviously an excellent example of that. Most contributors work to provide factual information and closely watch when spammers and others (jokesters, politicians, etc) attempt to manipulate information for their specific purpose.

Great video.

Web 2.0 is about linking people. Web 3.0 is about linking ideas. What’s the big difference? Ideas have meaning. Meaning is personal.

The smallest unit of meaning is the question and answer. That’s what I see as Web 3.0. It is not a search term, ala Google. Because when I have a question, it is personal, and I don’t want to translate it into a search term.

That’s where I’m going with http://helpglobe.com

Another brilliant view of the web.

This guy ought to get a film contract. He’s sort of a non-linear God with the grace to make order from chaos.

Think on this: If my kids young kids were to just spend a day deconstructing this one video (and his prior vid), they would have mental fodder for the rest of their years in formal education.

Kicks-butt. This is what Sunday AM pondering was made for.
Thanks for the breakfast banter, Duncan.

Mark Alan Effinger
http://www.RichContent.com

There is no shelf — but then a hierarchical category is just as much a labeled link as anything used on the Web. In a library catalog it points to a place in physical space, and on the Web it points to a file on a server.

The the act of categorization and organization is how we understand things and place them in context to see the relationships between a collection of things.

There is no book — but library catalogs only link to objects, and make no distinction about what is in these objects. You can’t go to a library catalog to find a poem, you can only look up collections of poems which may contain that poem.

You can’t look up a quote, or date or fact in a library catalog, because it is only a catalog of objects.

But Google isn’t much better because it has replaced one object, the book, with an other object, the page or file. If the subject of a Web Page is what you are searching for you have a good chance of finding it. If, on the other hand you are looking for information contained in some page like a quote, event, or fact, then Google will be only slightly better at finding it than the library catalog.

Tags are very useful tools, but they do not organize. At best they are mnemonic breadcrumbs which record word associations. They are good at short term knee jerk categorization. But how many times have you gone to tag a page on del.icio.us and seen tags like “toread”. How will tags like this be of any use to anyone but to the person who tagged it, and even for them, when they try to remember what tag they used for that page a year from now, are they going to remember that it was tagged “toread”?

Keyword search and tagging are useful tools, but they certainly aren’t the only tools we need. I’m finding now that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find things in my bookmarks in del.icio.us — there are too many tags. If I look for a link in “library” but forget to look in “libraries”, “archive” and “archives” I may not find the bookmark. Tags are flat, and they don’t scale very well.

Subject headings used in libraries and thesauri have solved these problems. A library is not a room full of books because of its catalog system. This makes a library greater than the sum of it’s parts. But the Web is just a cloud of pages and unstructured links. We invoke Google’s secret algorithms to distill meaning from chaos, but let’s not kid ourselves, it’s a hit and miss affair build on popularity. Google is brilliant at finding new content, but the older an item is, the deeper it gets buried in the cloud until there are no more links left to it and it vanishes from our search engines.

We need persistent means of categorizing, indexing and remembering things.
The Web has the attention span of, “a ferret on crystal meth”. Libraries are designed to remember the recorded memory and experience of the human race so that future generations will be able to remember what their parents had forgotten.

We still have a long ways to go…

Great video.

Information evolution is a big event happening now. Web 2.0 is not a pure marketing term, and neither will Web 3.0 be. These version numbers represent a line in history. They show that we/b evolve/s.

– Yihong

Two words:

Superficial fluff.

One of these Web x.0’s has to be The Paperless Office, followed by Work From Anywhere. It’s almost Joseph Campbell-like, the drive people have to create new myths as imperative once the existing ones take hold. Insatiable.

“I didn’t say Web 3.0 ‘is going’ to trigger WW3. I wrote — “It ‘would’ trigger new age wars or Civil wars in countries or World War III”. You said it.”

Okay, you are correct. You never said Web 3.0 _is going_ to trigger WW3, you said Web 3.0 _would_ trigger WW3. Very clear difference, thanks for pointing out my mistake and please accept my apology.

!?

“There’s still a shelf.

Now we call it a server.”

Seriously, lol. Aside from a catchy tune and time-maneuvered editing, there’s nothing to see here. Definitely no great insight. Move along folks.

This guy may be on to sumtin’
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

Whats next .. Immersion - and experience:

For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVFsxev-2sk

===============================

Let the web 2.0 effect spread and sink in first…! Web 2.0 itself hasnt mainfested its best yet…. If we say Web 3.0 it should be a radical next level..not a mere extension of 2.0..doesnt make much sense naming it differently

The future will bear witness to a titanic struggle between collective human minds and planetary A.I’s brought into being by the likes of Google.. Would you rather trip the void as part of a webSwarm or plug-in to a gridwork lattice bound to a machine’s consciousness..?

muhahaa… all very dramatic

@Brad - why can’t we create synonyms for tags, so we can gather them in useful clusters. Google obviously does this with keywords.. I plan to provide mechanisms for users to do it in my framework (e.g. loreStorm

I for one like this video and think it’s getting at something very real about how people are creating and finding information. If you start exploring analytics software you’ll realize people are coming to our sites from all over the place looking for things we barely remember having put there. I think it’s a distraction calling this Web 3.0 (a too-cute term I hope we all drop as quickly as possible), as this is just the continued roll-out of Web 2.0 as content creation spreads further out among the masses. The big news is that tags are replacing categories, just as search engines replaced directories: it’s the content that matters, not the boxes we put it into.

That film was great.