At the Cisco and Trovus seminar  today we asked our audience for their questions around web2.0.

We are outlining these questions on our blog and throwing them open for debate. The first question was on what distinguishes the businesses who are innovating around the web.

The second question was on how do you set up a blog/ wiki.

The next question which we answer here is:

Please comment on Web 2.0 redefines to the techno immigrant the meaning of "community", "friend" and "the truth". All of which can now be achieved at arms length without physical contact

Thank you for the question Michael - thats a lot of question - where to start...

Well its certainly a significant shift for the techno/ digital immigrants to consider the meaning of these words in the context of what they mean for a digital native (who are by and large naturally comfortable with these concepts being acheived online).

The shift is clearly a cultural one and challenges an immigrants natural perception of what these 3 words mean. Let me suggest some differences between how the two groups might view each of these concepts and some of the typical reactions we get to each of these:

Community 

To a native I am not sure the word "community" necessarily comes into play - its all driven by the benefit and what do they get from it - for natives Facebook is Facebook and its a part of their lives - its just part of their everyday life as is their mobile phone.

For the immigrant the word community and what is happening comes as a real challenge and if we use the example of a generic network such as Facebook, we often hear the question: Whats the point of Facebook - I dont get it - why would i do this.

For many natives it is second nature and the fact that it is being challenged is almost an insult; I recall one conversation with a recent graduate on this very point. The answer was that Facebook just is, it works and my friends and network are on there - its the second internet.

Can these differences be reconciled? I don't see the position of the natives changing on this one, so for Immigrants the choice is to engage with it or leave it. Interestingly, 41% of people on Facebook are over 35

Friend

What defines a friend in the real world?

Let me suggest its someone you have met on two plus occasions and have shared some time with, an experience, some emotional connection and perhaps you have other people to connect you and cement that experience.

I guess you would have to ask the 13-17 real time generation for how one third of them in Chris Gabriels survey are creating friendships in the online world. My guess is that they are connecting - perhaps through other friends, spending time talking and sharing an experience albeit online through IM or a social network.

Why should that be so challenging, whats the essence of friendship that might seem missing to an Immigrant?

I would be interested to get other views on whether an online friend is any less valid or real than a friend in online world.

Truth

This is an interesting one and I would be interested to know whats behind the question. My perception of the question is that people read information online (generated by others in terms of Wikipedia etc) and it is believed as truth.

Just because its created by the "community", does that make it less valid than someone reading a newspaper and getting the views of a particular journalist or editor and believing that as the truth?

I sense there is more to this final part - it would be great to get more detail on it and also views on the other parts.

This question highlights some really key parts of the cultural shift required around web2.0/ the evolution of the web and I am pleased we can open it up here.

Comments

There are currently 4 comments about this blog.

Edward Charvet, 7 months ago

Chris, for recruitment, our belief is that at its highest level the web must be able to support a cost effective mechanism for the focus on niche / specialist markets. This will cover both the supply side (candidates with specialist skills) and the demand side (recruiters looking for specialist skills). This is what all recruiters have been doing for some time but could the web support the discovery of vital elements such as cultural fit by increasing the number of client and candidate touch points across the matching process? Trovus have been working with a specialist recruiter for some time now striving towards exactly this....happy to show you the principles.

Chris Evans, 7 months ago

Enjoyed the session last week, noiw trying to understand what this could mean to our recruitment business.

Caspar Craven, 7 months ago

For me it is the distinction between facts and opinions and users of the web having the ability to distinguish between the two things. I think what I am seeing more is that people tend to gain an affinity to certain blogs or influencers in particular sector, and it those people who create a presence online which people take as the truth. For example of my preferred blogs is Techcrunch by Michael Arrington. I do read and trust his views as over time they have been seemingly reliable (based on opinions rather than fact). Wiki's are different and I think that your point about the information being a journey is very valid. Wikinomics in particular tends to drive towards fact rather than opinion and it may take some time for the correct facts to be evolved. Having said that I recall a survey that showed that Wikipedia was more correct than Encylopedia Brittanica on the basis that Wikipedia has the ability to evolve and correct outdated facts and information.

Michael Higgins, 7 months ago

The comment was designed to be provocative but it also encapsulates in my view the three areas that underpin the native /immigrant discussion.I agree that the concepts of friend and community are now taken into the third person without the need for traditional social interaction and this is a key aspect of the culural change. The issue of truth is an important ,but more philosophical matter.If you consider crowd sourcing as a process there is a risk that at any point in time an individual relies on information that is still in the course of reaching an optimum state.They therefore are at risk of ascribing an inappropriate level of authority to the information they access.This can create a misconception of truth as opposed to an opinion qualified by the data accessible and/or available at the time. The great danger of the web is it creates an ability for every statement -true,false or just an opinion -to be challenged by reference to a different set of source information. This is not a bad thing-but it means that you have to treat conclusions carefully . Michael

Leave a Reply