Web 3.0: WE can't let THEM decide it for US

Here is how Wikipedia defines it:

Web 3.0, a phrase coined by John Markoff of the New York Times in 2006, refers to a supposed third generation of Internet-based services that collectively comprise what might be called 'the intelligent Web'—such as those using semantic web, microformats, natural language search, data mining, machine learning, recommendation agents, and artificial intelligence technologies—which emphasize machine-facilitated understanding of information in order to provide a more productive and intuitive user experience.

Nova Spivack defines Web 3.0 as the third decade of the Web (2010–2020) during which he suggests several major complementary technology trends will reach new levels of maturity simultaneously including:...

This stuff makes great sense and it is a logical extension of web 2.0; actually, I would suggest that it IS web 2.0.  We will see the rise the semantic web and various sense making tools will emerge to help us filter and discover.  However, what I see in the definitions above is really, really, really interactive television where the USER has great control of the information that they can digest.  What is massively wrong about this definition is that it's nothing new.  It's a feature set. 

It is unreasonable to version the Internet in terms of features.  If features were the only variable then we are surely well past web 3.0.  So what do I think web 3.0 is...

The defining characteristic of Web 3.0 will be a blurring of the lines between the USER and the PUBLISHER.  I remember back when the web first getting pictures in the early 90's.  There was a big push to get folks to understand HTML.  I was caught up in the idea that anyone could have an opinion that everyone could see.  In the subsequent years I have been disabused of my utopic ideals of wildfire democracy spreading via the Internet.  It is, of course, far more difficult than that.

The reason why we need new filtering and discovering tools as defined in the Web 3.0 definition above is because of the amount of information, including the bit(s) I am generating now, that are being generated.  Some garbage, maybe most, and some valuable.  There is a fantastic short story by Jorge Luis Borges, The Library of Babel, (google for full text) that describes a not quite infinite but perfectly complete library where every possible book has been written, where exists every lie, every truth, every insight and every propaganda.  This is how I see the Internet, as the nascent Library of Babel.  But I am less interested in the tools that can help us understand the content than I am in the process of completing the library.  I am far more interested in monkeys at keyboards than I am in the latest marketing or fundraising tool.

Maybe it is just a matter of switching our point of view.  Web 3.0 will only be substantively different, deserving of a new version, IF it can turn the whole thing on its head.  Web 3.0 will be defined by its ability to be focused on value and not vapor and value can only be discerned by asking the question, is it valuable?  This is, of course, non-trivial. Google page rank is the classic example of how value on the internet can be discerned. I have written previously about value and how I think it emerges from the edges.  I hope to write more about how the tools above can be bent to serve web 3.0 as I have defined it but for now...

A draft for the three defining rules of web 3.0:

1. It is not possible to declare value. 
   
2. Value is determined by the agnostic physics of attraction.
   
3. The ideal of the universe of content is one that is as complete as the Library of Babel.

An attempt to put this in a commercial lexicon:
Selling will intrinsically include designing and designing will be done by the "consumer".

An attempt to put this in a social sector lexicon:
Sustainability will intrinsically include social impact and the impacted will define success.

An more long-winded attempt to put this in a philanthropy lexicon:
Philanthropy will be evaluated by its ability to move toward measureable solutions for real problems and these solutions and problems will be sourced from "the community".  Alternatively, philanthopists will all be defined first by their humility, by their ability to receive charity, or conversely, by their ability to realize deeply and personally the real value of those that they engage with.  (Paternalist philanthropy is sooooo Web 2.0).

Comments

[Paul Lamb]

But don't forget locative media and location based service. As Tim O'Reilly points out the merging of smart online with place-based mobile and sensor technologies are going to define the next wave...call it Web 3.0 or whatever you like.

And on your point check out this article on Bill Summers: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAKN14B2RR.DTL&type=printable

direct, peer-to-peer philanthropy (eliminating the foundation middleman) is where things are headed IMHO.

[Conches]

Paul, great point. Locative media is perplexing to me. I am sure the world will show me exactly why it is important. I remember before You Tube wondering if little video boxes on the web would ever really take off. I can clearly see how locative media is important for creating "presence" especially as peer-to-peer communications become more robust. The current incarnation with tools like Bright Kite telling me where people are via Twitter or on Facebook status messages is interesting functionality but not really useful as a broadcast outside of the "what bar are you at now and which one should we go to next" feature. As I said in the post, what I think should characterize Web 3.0 is not any particular feature or functionality, but instead, it should be characterized by its focus on the user and blurring the lines between producer and consumer. Locative media, in that it can create presence for the user, could have a pivotal role.

And many thanks for the link to the I've Bill Somerville story.

[Elisabeth]

I'm most struck by your notion of Web 3.0 blurring the line between USER and PUBLISHER. What would it take for those roles not just to blur but to transform fundamentally, or maybe for some dimensions of each to become obsolete?

[Conches]

Lissa,

I think that is exactly it. It is time to stop thinking about the web as a commerce platform but more as a communications platform that has the potential to radically alter what it means to publish, consume and discover information. Your questions are exactly the ones to wrestle with and the new web-services that force us to think about USER and PUBLISHER differently will be the ones that make the next version of the platform.