The Journalism Iconoclast » Web natives need to lead Web operations: “I mean honestly would you stick a bunch of Web people with little print experience in charge of a print publication? I guess if you wanted to fail you might consider that a viable option.
Let’s be real here: Web operations can only thrive when they are staffed by people who get the Web and enjoy using the Web. These are people who categorically prefer the Web over print publications. If this doesn’t describe your journalism organization, then you are doing something wrong.”
He gets my +1
I thought the guys from the [O’Reilly Insight Group](http://en.oreilly.com/webexsf2008/public/schedule/detail/3445) did a really good job of summing up what “Web 2.0” is:
* Listening – To your customers, readers, partners, etc.
* Participation – Joining into the conversations and relationships that those folks are having, and letting them participate in your conversations and relationships.
* Transparency – Opening yourself up, being honest about mistakes
* Ongoing inquiry – Continually asking your audience about what they’re looking for from you, ways to improve, etc.
Don’t those four points sound an awful lot like things that are core to journalism?
* Listening – To your sources, to your readers.
* Participation – Providing information to create better participants in a democracy. Participating in the society via an Op/Ed page.
* Transparency – Isn’t it every journalist’s goal to make as much of the public and private sectors transparent to the community they serve?
* Ongoing inquiry – Beat reporting, investigative journalism. We are an industry of ongoing inquiries.
So if “Web 2.0” and journalism are so similar, then why are so many journalists afraid or hostile toward “2.0” features on their Web site and “2.0” sites in general?
I don’t have an answer, and the Web doesn’t need any more speculation, so I’ll just put that question out there and hope some smarter folks have answers.
I thought I’d take advantage of the slow Wednesday afternoon to try and collalesce some thoughts from the first two days of the [Web 2.0 Conference](http://en.oreilly.com/webexsf2008/public/content/home)
* There are a lot of suit-types-with-PCs here (as opposed to geeks-with-macs). I’m guessing that means that the “[enterprise](http://www.flickr.com/photos/laughingsquid/49975919/)” is starting to pay attention to all this stuff if they’re sending execs, product management folks, etc.
* [OpenID](http://openid.net/) & [OAuth](http://oauth.net/) are being talked about. A. Lot.
* [OpenSocial](http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial/) is as well, to a lesser extent.
* [Data Portability](http://dataportability.org/) is on a lot of folks’ minds.
* It seems like a lot of folks are hoping that [OpenID](http://openid.net/) + [OAuth](http://oauth.net/) + [OpenSocial](http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial/) + [Data Portability](http://dataportability.org/) + As Yet Unknown Social Graph Provider == [Facebook](http://facebook.com) killer.
* The social web **is broken**. That is, unless you like re-accounting, re-friending, re-profiling, re-usernaming and re-passwording with every site you go to.
* If you’re trying to convince your [enterprise](http://www.flickr.com/photos/accidentalhedonist/2434887964/) to adopt social/Web 2.0 features, then get them a copy of [Groundswell](http://blogs.forrester.com/charleneli/), it’s written by some folks from [Forrester](http://www.forrester.com) so it has that shiny veneer of expensive consulting. (I’m being a little too hard on them, they did have some good and interesting points and compelling data).
* Web 2.0 is a stupid term. However, if it gets translated as “talk with and then listen to your customers” then it might worth having yet-another-buzzword. **Snarky comment**: Uh, maybe I’m just in the wrong generation, but why is this such a difficult concept for companies to grasp?
* [Clay Shirky](http://www.shirky.com/) is a smart guy. (Clay, where’s the [RSS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format) at?). Traditional media will continue to see a decline in usage as each new generation of Internet users becomes more participative. If you don’t allow your consumers to become creators, sharers and commentators of your content, then watch out.
* [Jonathan Zittrain](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Zittrain) is also a really smart guy. As computing moves into the cloud (can we come up with a better metaphor) there are some real and serious legal issues to consider. If the government or a mega-corp doesn’t like your application hosted on [EC2](http://aws.amazon.com/ec2)/[Google App Engine](http://code.google.com/appengine/), what’s more likely: they help you in your legal battle to keep it alive -or- they suspend your account to avoid a costly lawsuit.
* The mobile Web **is broken** and is **a bad idea.** One Web, one set of standards is the only way to have an even remote chance at replicating the success of the “Desktop Web”.
* **Yahoo**, **Google**, **Amazon**, **Facebook** and others are to Web 2.0 what **Microsoft** was to Web 1.0 — they want you to develop on their platform and be locked into their API. Smart developers will remember that the only API we need is HTML/HTTP — play in their gardens (walled or otherwise) but *live* on the Web.
By day, I'm a product manager serving a group of fantastic engineers at Square.
By night, I fight crime and solve mysteries with a robot pal of my own creation.
By midday, I like a snack, generally a cookie.
Part of this biography isn't true (hint, I like cookies and engineering, I don't own a robot)
