{"id":9,"date":"2007-07-16T13:02:48","date_gmt":"2007-07-16T13:02:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/leirdal.net\/blog\/?p=9"},"modified":"2011-09-05T08:46:05","modified_gmt":"2011-09-05T07:46:05","slug":"web-2-0-scary-technology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.leirdal.net\/blog\/archives\/9-web-2-0-scary-technology.html","title":{"rendered":"Web 2.0 – Scary technology?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Some of the inspiration behind this blog-post came from this post<\/a> on www.technewsworld.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The reason why I write about this here is that it seems that he and I have experienced some of the same challenges. These issues are also present for all other network based solutions that people like me suggests would \u201csolve\u201d all the world\u2019s problems. If perhaps not expressed as clearly as by the author of that article, some of the risks have to be addressed by all internet-consultants when we propose a new solution.<\/p>\n

The problem we see here is based on several conflicting needs felt by the users. In order to explain these issues I need to step back and explain the basic ideas behind internet based solutions.
\nWe have for several years talked about portals and web-servers. These are products we so far have been using to spread information and make it easier for all to find the information they need. With every new version of these products we have seen new features and more interaction between all the parties involved. This development has not stopped and these products will continue to evolve into new and hopefully better solutions. (If nothing else, these products will have even more features). Now the \u201cWeb 2.0\u201d era has entered the marketplace. Sites like www.digg.com<\/a> and www.wikipedia .org<\/a> has showed us that user-generated content is possible and that it doesn\u2019t have to be of poor quality. Other sites have, by creating social networks or applications, shown that whole internet communities can appear in a relatively short time. In Norway one of the more recent examples would be www.facebook.com<\/a>, but there are other examples (www.linkedin.com<\/a>, www.myspace.com<\/a>, blink.dagbladet.no<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Already with the first iterations of web-sites we experienced some of the side-effects of our new technology. Information we wanted to be available to only some people wasn\u2019t always as secure as we thought. Products that seemed secure suddenly had weaknesses, and the greatest strengths of the internet also proved to be some of its greatest weaknesses \u2013 openness and availability.<\/p>\n

By utilising web 2.0 principals our web solutions are now a lot more interactive and instead of having only readers we are having users and participants. We\u2019ve got \u201csticky sites\u201d that users return to every day or several times a day. Our solutions have evolved into communities and social networks. This is also visible inside corporations. By creating Wikis, blogs and discussion forums companies might utilise their employees\u2019 social behaviour in order to increase the corporate knowledge and reduce educational costs. It is important to note that none of these applications are new. Some of them have existed for decades. It is the widespread utilisation of applications like this that is new.<\/p>\n

So now we can address the problem expressed in the start of this post a bit further. Instead of being considered strengths openness and availability might be considered to be quite large risks. The complexity of these issues have grown even more than the complexity of the solutions we have created. Information is available everywhere, but should that information really be available. Many companies or organisations have experienced already that employees have been giving away more information than what is prudent. In Norway, media has discussed people\u2019s behaviour on Facebook by reporting on politicians complaining about boring meetings and government personnel giving away government secrets by telling too much about what they do.<\/p>\n

These concerns are quite real and companies are correct to be careful. The issue here is probably to correctly educate the users on what to do instead of prohibiting everything. My task as a consultant is to acknowledge these risks for what they are and address them in a serious and constructive manner. The \u201cnew\u201d tools we have at our disposal can be a great benefit for most companies, both internally and externally so I recommend that you do not ignore all tools just because you might experience some drawbacks. Use them, but use them correctly. And even more important: Use you employees and your partners correctly.<\/p>\n

To illustrate that, I would like to point to a post on www.socialcomputingjournal.com by R. Todd Stephens. There he lists fifteen possible uses of a corporate Wiki and fifteen possible uses of a corporate blog.<\/p>\n

Quote:<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n