When I
first heard about "Web 2.0" I thought that maybe the countries of the
world were going to shut down the Internet and reboot into a newer more
fantastic version of the Internet. I didn't realize until much later that it
was an evolution of the web in general. It actually wasn't until I heard the
term "Web 3.0" that I first realized what the hell Web 2.0 was all about. I'm
catching up and now that I'm starting to grasp it, I'd like to know if there
isn't something much bigger going on. Maybe this evolution of the Internet is a
mirror of mankind's evolution. What if we could tap into our everyday lives,
our spiritual lives, and our personal lives in the way that we are tapping into
the World Wide Web?
In the Beginning
When the
Internet first became popular it took on the same sort of persona that we had
come to love and trust in the brand new Information Age. We would pick up a
phone and dial a number, wait for an answer and then connect to the Internet.
From there we would go to nicely categorized topics: gardening, books,
chatrooms, and websites about dog grooming.
This model
worked for quite some time. Even after the Google revolution where search
engines reigned as supreme beings of the World Wide Web, we still had a simple
hierarchal and categorical approach to finding information. We would go to a
website and find a predetermine category for something and it would be there.
It was until a few years ago that the model changed at all.
When you go
to Google and search for something you are bound by Google's mathematical
assertion on what you are looking for. If you Google "poodle" the sheer amount
of hits that come up is staggering (13.1 million). In the normal categorical
way of doing things, we would have to sort through all of these entries to find
the poodle information we were looking for. This is the library approach of
doing things.
Remember,
back in . . . like, 1991? If you wanted to know about poodles you had to go to a
repository of information. Many times these were in buildings called libraries.
Inside were catalog systems. Back in 1989 it may have been card catalogs, but
by 1991 it was probably on a computer of sorts. You would find an assortment of
books about poodles in the catalog and go check them out. Google is doing it
the same way. Instead of 12 books to go through, you have 13.1 million. And to
make matters worst, anyone and their mother can write an entry about poodles so
you have no idea which one is relevant or even trustworthy.
Thank God
Wikipedia came along. Now we can just bust through a 30 second article and find
basically all we need to know about poodles. Sure it isn't 100% reliable and
sure it isn't accepted as proper research material by universities, but it's
there and easy to find. We no longer need to sort through 13 million articles -
we can just breeze through one article summarizing poodles.
Still that
is inadequate. What if Wikipedia doesn't mention how poodles are supposed to be
groomed? Searching Wikipedia for grooming poodles may or may not yield a proper
result. So if you return to Google you are stuck sorting through 13 million
more articles to find that one you want.
And to make
matters worst: what if you can't remember what poodles are called? All you can
think of is small and fluffy dog. Well that could be basically anything! How do
you search for that? You get 2 million results that may or may not have the
particular breed of dog you are looking for.
The
Internet, for all of its information, is still categorical. There is one
specific file that holds that one specific thing you are looking for. Poodle is
categorized under "poodle". Just like in the library. Well, not always. Not the
Web 2.0 sites.
Categorization
is really not the whole point. The point is that it is the websites that tell
the users how to access information. It is their predetermine categories that
users must learn and navigate to find what they need. In the traditional
Internet model there isn't much of a place for a user to contribute, share,
collaborate or in anyway participate with the Internet unless specific access
points are awarded to them.
The
Internet was set up this way because that's how the world of information has
always been. A group controls the distribution of information by providing
specific access points to it. Libraries provide books that they choose and
lease them under conditions they specify. Governments horde information and
allow access to qualified people. Private organizations also distribute
information, but often with a price tag. The recipient of information has
rarely ever been in control of how to access the information nor do they
generally have the freedom to utilize that information however they wish.
This is
especially true with philosophical and religious organizations. Religions have
thrived for thousands of years on distributing information through a single
focal point (often a religious leader) and limited how recipients of that
information can use it, by setting up traditional rituals, hierarchal
structures, and organizational guidelines. Certainly companies and corporations
are guilty of this as well, but who isn't? That is the culture of how
information is handled.
Well, not
always. Not with Web 2.0.
Web 2.0
Web 2.0 is
not an upgrade to the Internet. It is an upgrade to how we use the Internet. First
coined by the O'Reilly Web 2.0 Conference in 2004, it was an official
recognition on how all of the millions upon millions of pieces of categorical
data could become useful information to a practical user. In short, it is about
changing the Internet from a thing we use, to a platform for us to use other
things. It's not the destination, it's the launching pad.
It's hard
to pinpoint exactly where the movement began. Perhaps it was the original
Napster where thousands discovered they could share music across the Internet
(until the copyright violation faeries came along). Maybe it was MySpace where
thousands discovered they could post random information about themselves along
with videos and music for others to see. It could be Wikipedia where thousands realized
they could post and edit articles with little to no consequence. Or maybe
Blogger where one could post a daily journal. Or Yahoo Newsgroups. Or YouTube.
Or Flickr. Or Digg It. Or eBay. Or Amazon. Maybe they all came at once. Maybe
the web owners realized there was more capital to be made from user-submitted
and categorized content than business-determined content. However it happened,
or whatever the source, Web 2.0 exploded all at once.
Suddenly
the web was a place where anyone could post anything and have the same amount
of consideration as everyone else. You could compete on eBay and Amazon
alongside major corporations. You could create a major music following on
MySpace and compete with major record labels. You could blog about politics and
change the tide of national elections. You could go onto newsgroups and talk
one on one with CEOs and celebrities. You could submit, access, and distribute
anything anyway you wanted.
Of course
that meant a billion percent more junk and irrelevant junk to hit search
engines (who still liked to top-down categorize things). So along with this
social uprising came user-oriented categorization. Social networking and
bookmarking is the latest craze and a necessary movement to process the sheer
load of information bombarding the average users. People can meet other people
with similar interests and share information. It's that simple. User-driven,
user-categorized information sharing and collaboration.
The more
popular Web 2.0 sensibilities became the more the Internet adapted. Websites
now allowed an infinite amount of categorization techniques to any given piece
of content and they were all categorized by users. For example, an article on
poodles could be tagged as "poodle", "big fluffy dog", "space alien" or whatever
and the infamous tag cloud would collate all of these categorizations and show
in a visually pleasing way so users can see where other users thought the
information belonged. Since it is users doing the work it naturally ascended to
a more user-friendly approach. Things were right where they should be. Now one
piece of content could have an infinite amount of categories so any random
person would find it according to the category they thought it would be in.
Why stop at
articles? Web 2.0 spread to music, images, videos and almost any form of
information you could possibly think of. Now everyday people had the power of
holding, distributing and using information. Web-owners could only capitalize
by allowing users to do what they want and charge other businesses ad-space
based upon user activity.
With this
uprising in user-controlled content came a shift in the ownership of knowledge.
No longer was knowledge proprietary. Those that used to control the
distribution of knowledge also controlled the knowledge itself. Now users
controlled it and adapted open licenses so that others could freely distribute
as well. The ideas of a central repository of proprietary information had gone
out the window. No longer was there a need for things like copyright, categories,
or repositories. Everything was free and available to whomever wanted it and
the users found it by finding each other.
This
mentality is changing not only how we use the Internet but also how we live. We
are beginning to second guess what advertisers tell us - instead we look at
what other people say about the product. We no longer have to buy our
education, we can self-educate. We are no longer limited to what institutions
say what we can and cannot know. We choose our movies, music, books and political
candidates by our own preferences not by the direction of a marketing firm.
This is the age of collaboration, sharing, and community.
If we
accept this culture in the practical realm of our lives, why not the spiritual?
As a society, we are in a 21st century mindset except when dealing with
spirituality. In that realm we still operate in the 17th century. Many
religions still own and distribute knowledge through a hierarchal system.
Philosophy and mysticism is owned and sold to those who can afford dues and
fees. The secrets of the universe are given to those with the academic
excellence, wallet size, and arbitrarily assigned worth and not to the masses.
When it is given to the masses it is water-downed, mutilated and not very
useful.
Web 2.0ing
our spirituality means opening up the doors for discussion. Finding others who
have an opinion about reality and compare notes. Evolve spirituality into a
pool of data that can be accessed by anyone and redistributed however they see
fit. Like we saw with the web that means there will be a lot of junk, but it
also means the masses will reveal what they consider relevant and important.
Instead of
applying arbitrary categories on things like Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or
Freemasonry we should "tag" concepts with whatever applies. How many Buddhist
concepts are shared by Islam and Hinduism? Why can't those concepts be
categorized into all three religions instead of just one? How many things do
science and religion agree upon? Why are they kept separate? Can the various
aspects of the Judeao-Christian god be compared to the Zoroastrian one? Are the
systems of Kabbalah and Wicca similar? What if we look at the information and
then apply whatever categories fit? Like Web 2.0, this means everyone can find
the information no matter what their worldview is. And with that many hands in
the pot we are destined to get closer to the truth. We are, at least, closer
than if we continue to compartmentalize information and limit its distribution
arbitrarily to a small minority of people.
Web 3.0
The
Internet is already ahead of us. We have only begun to realize the power of
collaboration on a social platform of information and it is already moving way
past that. The future of the web is one of intelligent design: where technology
follows our patterns and movements and steers us to the places we will find
most useful. It breaks down monstrous computer programs into modular, easy to
use and adaptable applications that can be used no matter where you are. You
will no longer need to be in a particular place to access knowledge, you can
access it no matter where you are or what you are doing and translate it to
wherever you are going.
Life is
categorized now by context, no location. Mobile phones, MP3 players, laptops,
desktops and televisions all can access the same stuff and in the same way.
Electronics now share content as if they were the same exact thing. We are no
longer limited by platform, application and location. The boundaries of
distance are ultimately removed and the limitation of technology completely
invisible.
What if we
got spirituality to the level of Web 2.0, what would be next? Since all
information is shared by need and not by arbitrary distribution the barriers
between religion would be nearly invisible. Truth would transcend dogma and
Religion 3.0 would be a medley of lifestyles, guidelines, and truth that can be
easily customized to each individual however he or she sees fit.
Not a bad
place to be. And who knows, maybe we'll figure out how to text God our prayers.
