“The numerical versioning of human organizational clusters is an example of reverse anthropomorphosis.”
What the hell? I’m trying to parse this gibberish and I wrote it. Lance would give this as a perfect example of how we need to revert back to simple english or whatever he calls it. I may even have to agree that the above sentence is full of meaning without a clear point.
I know the definition of the words, I actually understand it. But reading it just makes my head hurt in absentia for others who would read it.
Why did I write that particular piece of gobbledygook? I am writing a paper on Web 2.0/Social Media. I am attempting to point out that Web 2.0 is a point in time mark of web interaction behaviors and technology states. It is a convenient label selected at an arbitrary point in time. However the behaviors and even the technology is different than what it was when the label was given. I believe the attraction of Web 2.0 is not in the inanimate allure of new technology but in the sense of community it fosters. And communities are human social arrangements thus Web 2.0 is a description of human communication on a particular medium. Adding a version number to a human behavior is thus reverse anthropomorphism. Perhaps a good example is that of the english language. If we were to encounter a U.S. citizen of the late 1700’s their english would be markedly different than the english we use today. The medium is the same (that of language) but it is also evolutionarily different from its predecessor. Yet do we call what we speak english 2.0? Certainly not because we understand that language is a living organism that is reflective of the society to which it is employed.
Is then the web any different? The medium has not fundamentally changed but the style of interactions of improved and increased. The web is a way in which humans interact with one another. So why call it Web 2.0? Really why?