I wonder why.
1. The internet is dead.
2. STOP WEB 2.0
3. Technology is the enabler of business not its purpose.“Stop it. We already have an internet… Web 2.0 started as a good idea. That idea has had its day. Good little dog. Now go away.”
I’m not about to take the website that seriously, because there is something somewhat flawed in their “manifesto” a.k.a. The Leviticus Project. So I scratched my head and headed over here to write this post.
Yes, “we already have the Internet.” So, uh, why is it dead?. Yes, cyberspace is an ancient term for what we have today. But since when has Web 2.0 come to contradict it, or even take the place of the internet it was built on?
Yes, it’s been hyped too much. (Uh, don’t get me started on the names.) Is the added convenience and knowledge that has come of it, despite that hype, deemed unnecessary as well?
Is this what you what you get when you try to (a) redefine an undefinable phenomenon that started out to be something cooler and more wonderful than the usual way of using the web; (b) throw that coined term around with or without full understanding of it; (c) patent it and try make money from it?
Yes, all of the above.
I’m no expert about Web 2.0 but this has gotten out of hand.
Update: “Always forward ladies and gentlemen- INSTEAD of whining- we work and go forward” says he. So why’d he break his own rule? (You’ll find the answer in the comment section of this post.) His colleague puts it much more nicely: “why sit around and talk when you can do!”
I heartily agree — it did get out of hand. The Stop Web2.0 ‘campaign’ does befuddle me, though.
*looks at image alternate txt/title* Hotlinked from the Site? LOL! :P
hotlinked? well they did provide code for “linking back”.
Linkbait. Oldest SEO trick in the book.
they could have made their reasoning a wee bit clearer.
(there’s obviously linkbaiting here, too.)
Guys- they is us. While I and the geek ninja clan at pandora squared threw this out there- we threw it out for the world…its not “Ours” it is just thoughts to get the ball rolling.
We are just a bunch of geeks- perhaps just like you. I appriciate your feedback- so to continue- how do we improve our message without dilluting it?
I would rather be wrong about something and have had action, than have had no action and not do anything.
Keynes’ saying: “Publicly it is more acceptable to fail by conventional means than to succeed by unconventional ones.” comes to mind here…
Look I am sure we will have failures in stuff we do or promote- but it is better to have stood for something than done nothing. This may not sit well with you now- but if you perhaps look at what we are saying – its a gold rush- lets not be part of it. You may go okay no they are not some sneaky or I don;t know other concepts seam to be implied here…
Yea it was written manifestish sorry I threw it out.
also the levticus project is open its not “Ours” is just something we are a part of and got going. I’d rather have your dissent though than not- so thanks and again stop web 2.0
my two centavos
-Kevin Leversee
hey kevin, thanks for dropping by!
first, my use of they was not to imply exclusitivity. it simply served its purpose as a third-person pronoun.
second, and i’ve said this already: there is something weird about the way things have been said in the stop web 2.0 site and in other places, such as here and the post “why stop web 2.0″—
on “its a gold rush- let’s not be part of it”:
my suggestions:
1) not using the term web 2.0
2) not riding along the wave (if you catch my drift)
3) not sounding too rambly (or in your words, manifestish)
regarding keynes and failure:
web 2.0 is the best-est arena to live and breathe failure. the dotcom boom was a disappointment that people would want to avoid this time around, but you said it yourself: better to have done something than nothing. that is exactly the risk people are taking with all these startups.
we both agree on the glittery hype that prettifies web 2.0. i’ve been poking fun at it with qwerky, while you’ve made a compaign to stop the bs. i’m just not sure either of us can accept the bubble popping. we’re both geeks; i’ll take a stab in the dark and further assume we’re both developers—if we won’t admit to ourselves web 2.0 hasn’t taught us anything, then it’s never been around at all.
tolerance is a virtue. my two philippine pesos also.
This is a self-serving “manifesto” horribly written like a a rambling lunatic. True, there are too many me too startups out there but that’s not reason enough to say stop the whole web 2.0. What does he want, throw the internet altogether and go back to 1999? BS.
He says stop talking and start doing but what he says is stop doing like Stop web 2.0 and shut down startups and stop what geeks are doing. He says sea of conversations so why does he ask people to stop talking????
@andy: i think it’s all in the way words were put together. and he’s pretty much open to suggestions about improving the manifesto anyway.
You have good points, Kevin. I do think that “Web 2.0” is hype and probably another bubble waiting to burst. But it gets things done and gets things moving. And while not intending to rebuild the internet, people envision changes in perspectives in how the ‘net is used as a tool and as a medium (for communication, info exchange, whatever).
It’s just a name. But there’s more to names than just letters and words.
I’m quite baffled, though how a company that does “Web 2.0 Process Integration” would say “Stop Web 2.0.” ;)
Cheers.
J
web 2.0 gets nothing done. its fake BS and a 3 ring circus. it is still the same thing- passionate dudes working hard late at night coding.
Technology is the enabler of business not its purpose.
stop it guys.
stand up for something. crap it is easy to blog and talk about the spaces in between words.
when it comes down to it – it is all the same black marks written on paper- or a phosphorescent screen by mad men that reflects enunciation and the sound and tone of voice.
at least we are saying something, not standing around taking pot shots talking about how we could of done it better. point is. program code. deliver.
we are.
we have been.
we want you to do so too
and we would rather drink pale pilsen with mates and do amazing things than
talk topak or crazy.
its better to be wrong and have done something.
than done nothing.
I am in Guadalupe- living with the people of the land. Come let us chat if you are in Manila, we can discuss this and find out how to make this better. its better to disagree and chat- and come up with better ways. than do what we are doing so far.
If you should want to speak to me personally and ask me any questions,
please feel free to contact me at the Citizens Foundation for the
Prevention of Crimes and Injustices, landline 898-2831 or cell phone
0917-851-9777.
Kevin, define web2.0 first and then talk about stop web2.0 later. You’ve got lots of big words, but big words are empty and self-serving because it really smells like you want everybody involved in web2.0 to stop from doing whatever they’ve started or created. They are the guys who are actually in the middle of the action while you’re talking about stopping them. Get what I mean? Sounds like you want them to turn their backs on their computers and let you be the only one to give what you think the world needs.
Hell, you’re not the only one who has to right to do things on the ‘net. Show you’re stuff and let the others show theirs.
Thanks for the invite, Kevin. I’m part of Pinoytechblog, and I do believe you guys had several rounds of the good stuff a few months back with my co-bloggers.
I prefer drinking my pale pilsen and writing stuff at the same time, though, but drinking with mates sure is good, too!
Pingback: Zlango — qwerky Archive