Web 2.0

Abstract

The Internet's history can be traced back to at least the 1960s (Abbate 1999). Although there have been a variety of terms used such as superhighway, cyberspace and cyberway, there was general agreement that the Internet was a single concept. However, O'Reilly (2005) has suggested that the Internet can be divided into two separate approaches: Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. This distinction reflects a growing frustration with how elites have used web technologies. O'Reilly suggests that Web 2.0 is more participative in nature, and therefore in terms of political discourse inherently encourages bottom-up communication. This paper will define Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, the differences between them and how they are and can be used within a political communication context. The increasing move towards professionalism (Negrine 2007) encourages political elites to seek to use new technologies to gain an edge. However, when used by political elites does Web 2.0 reflect technological, psychological or no change? The research data collected will focus on how political elites in the UK (political parties and party leaders) have sought to use Web 2.0 applications to identify whether Web 2.0 is a progression of Web 1.0, or something fundamentally and conceptually different? We will consider whether the content political elites use in their Web 2.0 applications is shovelware and more appropriate for Web 1.0, so considering whether Web 2.0 is something which only the disenfranchised can use? The analysis of political elite's use of Web 2.0 features will determine how effectively these elites are using Web 2.0 and whether we are viewing a shift in the way politicians communicate, or whether the use of tools from Facebook to YouTube represents a mere fad more likely to disappear than become entrenched in practice.

Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media

“…For instance, blogs may provide a catalogue, tag, or classification function for the users. According to the topics, users may have easier access to group the scholarly communities that consequently form the scholarly environment of social media (Birdsall, 2007).…”

Research on the Impact of Digitalization on the Democratization and Decentralization of the Media Industry

“…Since the advent of mobile devices such as smartphones and computers, digital technology has increasingly permeated various aspects of daily life. The process of digitaliszation has expanded the presence of media in online domains, facilitating easy access to media for a growing number of individuals, enabling them to consume media products, express their opinions, and engage in group discussions [1] . Moreover, it has enhanced the efficiency with which media products are delivered to audiences, allowing people to choose from a wider range of options and participate more extensively in media practices [2] .…”