Web 2.0 and Publishing (edited)

Interesting article from Information World Review.

Some excerpts:

Tom Coates, a technologist from Yahoo Technology Development, kicks off by summing up the disruption in attitude that is affecting information providers. “It’s in your interests as an author, researcher or scientist to get your work read, so you slap it on the internet, but that is not in the interests of your publisher,” he points out.

[My emphasis]


Coates divides Web 2.0 usage into two areas: “Collective intelligence and social software is one clump; the reuse and openness with data is a second theme of Web 2.0.”

Put another way, the first clump he’s talking about contains things like del.icio.us and Wikis. The “second theme” is exemplified by RSS and mashups.

Paul Miller, technology evangelist at library automation supplier Talis , adds: “The debate is how do publishers and scholars share data, yet formulate a business model?” For Talis, Web 2.0 is anything but disruptive. “The library market is not growing,” Miller says. “We were looking at taking our information management knowledge out to new markets.”

[My emphasis]

Miller also says “[b]logs and wikis are buzz – they will go away.”

While I agree that they are subjects of a lot of buzz, they’re not going away. The buzz will die down as they (and/or their descendent technologies) become commonplace, but I don’t believe they will go away.

(EDIT: Please see Paul’s clarification of this point.)

I was also tickled to see these buttons at the bottom of such an article:

There’s the “first clump” at work.

Go read it.

(Thank you, InfoBunny!)

2 thoughts on “Web 2.0 and Publishing (edited)

  1. Thanks for your comments. To respond specifically to thee bit about blogs and wikis, I think what I *meant* to say (and thought I had!) was that these two technologies are very much of the moment. The behaviours that they enable will continue, but ‘blog’ and ‘wiki’ are simply point in time solutions.

  2. Thanks for the clarification, Paul. It isn’t pleasant to be misquoted or taken out of context.

    I think we’re pretty much in agreement. I’ll add a note to the post advising the reader to see your clarifying comment here.