If A Blog Flickers in the Ether and Nobody Comments, is it Truly Web 2.0?
As Wikipedia defines it, Web 2.0 is…”a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosted services — such as social-networking sites, wikis and folksonomies — which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing between users.”
This definition has a few bugs, but the point is clear. The idea of having two-way communication, or dyadic communication, is the goal of those applications seeking the illustrious designation of 2.0, at their very minimum. Ultimately, the concept, at least in my opinion, is that the posting of information in a social context, is to share ideas and incite discussion about the topics that are discussed by a relatively informed and intelligent readership. Although, readership still implies one-way communication, doesn’t it?
Maybe a more appropriate Web 2.0 term should be ‘dyadership’ or ‘commership’ (implying commenting-readership) or some other clever bastardization of technobabble. I honestly can’t think of an appropriate massaging of ‘Dyad’. Of course, having that opens a whole new rabbit-hole for measuring and discussing how a blog measures its engagement and its apparent value to the public. Not how many people “See” or “Read” your stuff, but what percentage of those visitors volunteer perspective to grow your footprint for that specific subject on the web.
Recently, while attending a Shop.org conference event in Las Vegas, I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation given by David Weinberger, PhD (a Research Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School). While a portion of this was dedicated to bridging the gap between his two major works: ‘”The Cluetrain Manifesto” and “Everything is Miscellaneous“; a significant idea advanced by Dr. Weinberger was the inversion of a long-established social and commercial truth that the agency which controlled data, controlled the message. This is, by many standards, no longer considered absolute, and much less manageable with respect to the internet and the infinitely exponential calculations of people x opinions x venues.
Controlling the message now has a negative reaction from the perceptive open dialog of the world. Whether your site’s purpose is informational, functional, or commercial there is a measurable population comprising a ‘well of opinion’ about your brand, your product, your message, and, sadly, your personnel. To paraphrase Carrie Fisher as ‘Princess Leia’: ‘The more you tighten your grip…the more (insert Web 2.0 term) slip through your fingers”.
As a high profile example of this behavior, I would like to point to exhibit “A”: Washington Wizard’s Gilbert Arenas making predictions on his “Blog” about scoring and upcoming games, as well as compiling a catalog of excruciatingly calculated self-laudatory injections about his skill set and value as a player. Disclaimer: I’m a huge Boston Celtics fan. I also do not personally know Mr. Arenas and limit my commentary to his publication.
If anyone has been paying attention, the NBA season tipped-off last week. With its commencement, the Boston Celtics, a team which I am a lifetime fan, amped up their crowd in a pleasing display of teamwork and success with new additions Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, a determinant Paul Pierce, and the sharp-shooting of Rajan Rondo. Late in the third quarter of this collaborative clinic on teamwork, the rowdy and playoff-starved crowd, and the newly knighted Red Auerbach Court began rumbling and repeating the word “Gilbert”. I became curious. The commentators eventually divulged that the Gilbert to whom the crowd referred was Gil Arenas.
Mr. Arenas days prior posted on what he and others call his blog:
“So listen here. On November 2nd, we’re going to go into that building, we’re opening up Boston. Right now I’m telling the Boston fans: You guys are going to lose. It’s not going to be a victory for Boston. You might as well just cheer for me, because Boston isn’t winning in Boston for the season opener. I’m sorry.”
The outcome was a decisive Boston win: 103-83 final. A fitting start to a season which began with a gift from former Celtic Kevin McHale trading out Garnett from Minnesota. The win was apparently the only comment which held any meaning as far as Arenas, the Washington Wizards, or the NBA was concerned. No other commentary is allowed on his blog.
Sure, there are certainly reasons why this makes sense. There are too many people in Boston willing to comment on such statements before and after the game - memory consideration. The platform is hosted on NBA.com - obscenity and liability considerations. He talked trash in the town where it was invented - bandwidth considerations. But, no matter what the consideration, this ‘Blog’ is really no more than bad single-mode PR. On the other hand, what if commentary was allowed? How would that affect his play? How could he improve his image, his accuracy, and his public perception if he could be so bold as to gain insight from the feedback he received? What about Gilbert Arenas - the Open Brand….?
From an analytics and a Web 2.0 perspective, this is an example of a hit-counter. Nothing more than sophisticated than the electronic media equivalent of the tree in the woods. If a blog exists and produces information that nobody can share in and help define, it will soon be relegated to dusty shelves like the Atari and the Betamax.
