Tim O'Reilly: Moving into a New Reality
Tim O'Reilly is considered the author of the term "Web 2.0". In an interview with Spiegel Online, “web gurus” talks about whether to show YouTube to aliens, whether it’s normal to make money on people who are not paid for their work - and why he is tired of the term “Web 2.0”.
- You came up with the term "Web 2.0" about 2 years ago. Probably already started to get tired of it?
- Yes!
')
- Why?
- Actually - both yes and no. It’s a wonderful feeling to see something and realize that other people also agree with it. Not only did I actually come up with this term, one of my colleagues said it, trying to come up with a topic for the conference. He was essentially the first to name this phenomenon. The name “stuck” came up to the ideas that I have been preaching for many years.
- And now this term gets on your nerves?
“I was recently in the Virgin Islands with Richard Branson and his team. I had a meeting with the technology planning group of the company British Petroleum, and just now I received an invitation to meet with the CEO of IBM - this is just wonderful! But there is a drawback - you get tired of listening to yourself. It would be much more interesting to listen to others, and not to repeat the same thing many, many times.
- Now the term “Web 2.0” very often sounds from the lips of those who are fond of the idea of making money at the work of other people, for which you don’t have to pay ...
- Yes, this problem interests me greatly. Many people try to distort the idea and turn it into a “second version of the dot-com bubble.” I insist: “No, no - and again no! Everything is much more complicated here. ” The ideas behind my understanding of Web 2.0 are very complex. Nice to see that they are gradually understood. People guess: “Oh, it's not just the integration of services; this is the idea of using the collective mind! ” People are becoming aware of this. And I try to stay away from advertising agents and just talkers.
“Nevertheless, many people were carried away by the idea that you could not pay someone for the work — and make money from it.” Is it ethical? For example, the Gracenote database is based on data provided by its users. And this is a business: someone makes money on this service.
“Linux is an operating system created by its users — and some make money from it. This is an exchange of values - and it does not have to be money. The open-source communities have created a lot of useful things - and not only for companies like Red Hat who are commercially distributing Linux, but also for Google, Yahoo, Amazon and others who use Linux. Linux programmers - are they offended? Not. What is important to them? Reputation, best jobs: if you are an open source programmer, your resume speaks for you!
“But this does not apply to all those who add data to the Gracenote ...”
“It’s just that people understand that when they make a small contribution to a common cause, they don’t have to pay for it.” When I pick up a CD and see that there are unrecognizable tracks on it, I add data to this database. And I do not care that the guys from Gracenote earn money from it, because they created a useful service.
- Another popular term is “collective intelligence.” Is there no danger here that a crowd of people is more stupid, and not at all smarter than individuals?
- Much depends on the "technology of use." Sites like digg.com that allow users to vote for news are hostages of their system. But, for example, Google has quite successfully applied elements of the “collective mind” in its work: its search engine takes into account the number of incoming links to rank web pages in search results. In addition, Google takes into account the views of users about these very search results. Here's an interesting example: Alaska has a national park - Glacier Bay National Park. Google thinks: “We give the wrong results. People are recruiting Glacier Bay - and we give them a link to the website of the company that makes the toilets! ”Experts studied the results - and found that, it turns out, most users are really looking for the company that makes the toilets! The system created by the company was smarter.
- But the crowd of people is uncontrollable and can even be dangerous!
- An example of “crowd craziness” is spam. But its flow can be reduced with the help of the same “collective mind”: people can identify spam, and this has become the most effective technology to protect against it. We are moving to a new world, where people do not just express their opinions: in this world, information dissemination and “collective intelligence” dominate in real time.
- Let's do a little experiment. Imagine that you met an alien and want to tell him about human culture. What do you do: show him the most popular videos on YouTube or some pages on MySpace?
- Not. One American comedian answered this question: “This is not at all our civilization, we are just playing. Come in 10 years - and we will show you a real civilization. ” You can tell a stranger like that - or just shoot him so that he can return to his space ship. But seriously, I will show him Google and say: “This is still the pinnacle of what we have achieved in the development of artificial intelligence. What do you say? ”I will also show him the best works of art. And I'll show you what we are doing wrong, and ask: "Any ideas how to fix this?"
“I would like to talk about online communities such as Wikipedia or Digg.com, which are extremely informative. On Digg, people vote for really interesting news, materials. But if this service is choked in a stream of useless information, it will stall. Is there a way to avoid such a development path?
- Let's remember the history of the open-source community: they have a lot of experience in this area, positive experience. (Wikipedia, by the way, correctly used this experience - which is why this project is so successful.) Anyone can advise something, report an error, fix it - but it is useless to do it until someone more experienced says “Yes, cool, I will use it. " You will be invited to the “development team” only after you submit some useful fixes.
- So you propose to use the mechanism of exclusion and iherah?
- Yes. The result will be small professional groups. Linux founding father Linus Torvalds wouldn't even talk to you if someone he trusted trusted you. Such “trust groups” in projects for the development of open-source programs work quite successfully, protecting these projects from mass unprofessional participation. Surely projects like digg will soon use this experience too.
- Jason Calacanis created a clone of Digg - and began to pay people for what they did before. Is this just the application of that method of improving the "quality" of the community?
- May be. But still, a keen volunteer costs much more than a paid person. Of course, if you failed to gather around your site a group of such enthusiasts, then the payment for their work can be a chance to survive. But if you look at the results, it becomes clear: this technique does not work.
- Jaron Lanier calls Wikipedia dangerous because it creates a kind of “comprehensive knowledge” that can be used by anyone — even terrorists. He's right?
- You can distort anything. Wikipedia is primarily a useful source of information. Its regulatory mechanisms are not perfect, but they are effective — obviously more effective than, for example, our political system. When people think about such topics, they seem to me to try to apply too strict standards to the Internet. I love to quote a famous saying that is called "Sturgeon's Law." Theodore Sturgeon wrote books in the science fiction genre, and once someone told him that 95 percent of such works are complete nonsense. He replied: “95 percent of everything in the world is complete nonsense!” So Wikipedia is great, damn it!
“But is Stephen Colbert wrong with his idea of“ vikialnosti ”? If something is so beautiful, it becomes a universal standard, and people don’t have questions about it even when it contains errors.
- Open the history textbook! You can not virtualize everything! There is no more truth in Wikipedia than in a regular book. All that we do is a “set of realities,” and we are free to choose our perception of reality. People forgot about it? Definitely yes.
- Calacanis pays bloggers and diggers, MySpace and YouTube are used for advertising and PR. Is there a danger that Web 2.0 will be captured by “pros” who will create their own version of reality?
- Yes and no. Web 2.0 essentially means a long process, the result of which will be the unification of everything and everything. The Internet is starting to resemble the glue that connects everything we relate to. Yes, people are trying to use it for their own purposes. But this is the same thing as asking: “Can anyone create a better airline just at the expense of good PR?” Richard Branson can create an airline that is based on excellent PR. But he still needs to present the results of his work! You can not fly on his PR. Similarly, on the Internet - the service should work. You can focus on advertising - but this is not enough.
- And what if people, without even realizing it, push the service to the fact that it will stop working ...
“... people won't do that.” Eric Schmidt from Google is absolutely right in his strategy - “Do not fight with the Internet!” When you create a new service, think immediately what it will come to. The Internet is somewhat like gravity: if you want, you can fight it, fly — but you have to do everything right.
- Your name is associated with two main terms of our time - open-source and “Web 2.0”. What other word do you invent?
“We are working on the implementation of an interesting idea that will be“ preaching ”in the new magazine -“ Make. ”We are working to ensure that computers start interacting with the real world as“ custom-made ”. People are increasingly modifying certain devices. A large number of equipment is simply not used, is thrown out. People use their third or fourth digital camera - and what do they do with the previous one? After all, they can use it again. A huge amount of new technology like 3D printers is now worth about the same as primitive devices used to enter information into a computer at one time.
- That is the main idea - to return from the world of programs to the real world?
- Yes. The era of "custom production" is coming. It is like “artificial biology”, where “by request” chemical processes and materials are created - just as electronic equipment or other goods are produced, for example. We now have the opportunity to produce goods “invented” in Europe or the USA in those countries of the world where it will cost less. People can use full-fledged services to create something in the virtual world. Users, for example, create objects in Second Life or in Sketchup on Google Earth. The tools for developing “virtual” things, which can then be created in reality, have become more democratic, simple, widespread. For example, there are a couple of services with which you can get your avatar from Second Life printed in 3D format. I think this is extremely promising.
- You came up with the term "Web 2.0" about 2 years ago. Probably already started to get tired of it?
- Yes!
')
- Why?
- Actually - both yes and no. It’s a wonderful feeling to see something and realize that other people also agree with it. Not only did I actually come up with this term, one of my colleagues said it, trying to come up with a topic for the conference. He was essentially the first to name this phenomenon. The name “stuck” came up to the ideas that I have been preaching for many years.
- And now this term gets on your nerves?
“I was recently in the Virgin Islands with Richard Branson and his team. I had a meeting with the technology planning group of the company British Petroleum, and just now I received an invitation to meet with the CEO of IBM - this is just wonderful! But there is a drawback - you get tired of listening to yourself. It would be much more interesting to listen to others, and not to repeat the same thing many, many times.
- Now the term “Web 2.0” very often sounds from the lips of those who are fond of the idea of making money at the work of other people, for which you don’t have to pay ...
- Yes, this problem interests me greatly. Many people try to distort the idea and turn it into a “second version of the dot-com bubble.” I insist: “No, no - and again no! Everything is much more complicated here. ” The ideas behind my understanding of Web 2.0 are very complex. Nice to see that they are gradually understood. People guess: “Oh, it's not just the integration of services; this is the idea of using the collective mind! ” People are becoming aware of this. And I try to stay away from advertising agents and just talkers.
“Nevertheless, many people were carried away by the idea that you could not pay someone for the work — and make money from it.” Is it ethical? For example, the Gracenote database is based on data provided by its users. And this is a business: someone makes money on this service.
“Linux is an operating system created by its users — and some make money from it. This is an exchange of values - and it does not have to be money. The open-source communities have created a lot of useful things - and not only for companies like Red Hat who are commercially distributing Linux, but also for Google, Yahoo, Amazon and others who use Linux. Linux programmers - are they offended? Not. What is important to them? Reputation, best jobs: if you are an open source programmer, your resume speaks for you!
“But this does not apply to all those who add data to the Gracenote ...”
“It’s just that people understand that when they make a small contribution to a common cause, they don’t have to pay for it.” When I pick up a CD and see that there are unrecognizable tracks on it, I add data to this database. And I do not care that the guys from Gracenote earn money from it, because they created a useful service.
- Another popular term is “collective intelligence.” Is there no danger here that a crowd of people is more stupid, and not at all smarter than individuals?
- Much depends on the "technology of use." Sites like digg.com that allow users to vote for news are hostages of their system. But, for example, Google has quite successfully applied elements of the “collective mind” in its work: its search engine takes into account the number of incoming links to rank web pages in search results. In addition, Google takes into account the views of users about these very search results. Here's an interesting example: Alaska has a national park - Glacier Bay National Park. Google thinks: “We give the wrong results. People are recruiting Glacier Bay - and we give them a link to the website of the company that makes the toilets! ”Experts studied the results - and found that, it turns out, most users are really looking for the company that makes the toilets! The system created by the company was smarter.
- But the crowd of people is uncontrollable and can even be dangerous!
- An example of “crowd craziness” is spam. But its flow can be reduced with the help of the same “collective mind”: people can identify spam, and this has become the most effective technology to protect against it. We are moving to a new world, where people do not just express their opinions: in this world, information dissemination and “collective intelligence” dominate in real time.
- Let's do a little experiment. Imagine that you met an alien and want to tell him about human culture. What do you do: show him the most popular videos on YouTube or some pages on MySpace?
- Not. One American comedian answered this question: “This is not at all our civilization, we are just playing. Come in 10 years - and we will show you a real civilization. ” You can tell a stranger like that - or just shoot him so that he can return to his space ship. But seriously, I will show him Google and say: “This is still the pinnacle of what we have achieved in the development of artificial intelligence. What do you say? ”I will also show him the best works of art. And I'll show you what we are doing wrong, and ask: "Any ideas how to fix this?"
“I would like to talk about online communities such as Wikipedia or Digg.com, which are extremely informative. On Digg, people vote for really interesting news, materials. But if this service is choked in a stream of useless information, it will stall. Is there a way to avoid such a development path?
- Let's remember the history of the open-source community: they have a lot of experience in this area, positive experience. (Wikipedia, by the way, correctly used this experience - which is why this project is so successful.) Anyone can advise something, report an error, fix it - but it is useless to do it until someone more experienced says “Yes, cool, I will use it. " You will be invited to the “development team” only after you submit some useful fixes.
- So you propose to use the mechanism of exclusion and iherah?
- Yes. The result will be small professional groups. Linux founding father Linus Torvalds wouldn't even talk to you if someone he trusted trusted you. Such “trust groups” in projects for the development of open-source programs work quite successfully, protecting these projects from mass unprofessional participation. Surely projects like digg will soon use this experience too.
- Jason Calacanis created a clone of Digg - and began to pay people for what they did before. Is this just the application of that method of improving the "quality" of the community?
- May be. But still, a keen volunteer costs much more than a paid person. Of course, if you failed to gather around your site a group of such enthusiasts, then the payment for their work can be a chance to survive. But if you look at the results, it becomes clear: this technique does not work.
- Jaron Lanier calls Wikipedia dangerous because it creates a kind of “comprehensive knowledge” that can be used by anyone — even terrorists. He's right?
- You can distort anything. Wikipedia is primarily a useful source of information. Its regulatory mechanisms are not perfect, but they are effective — obviously more effective than, for example, our political system. When people think about such topics, they seem to me to try to apply too strict standards to the Internet. I love to quote a famous saying that is called "Sturgeon's Law." Theodore Sturgeon wrote books in the science fiction genre, and once someone told him that 95 percent of such works are complete nonsense. He replied: “95 percent of everything in the world is complete nonsense!” So Wikipedia is great, damn it!
“But is Stephen Colbert wrong with his idea of“ vikialnosti ”? If something is so beautiful, it becomes a universal standard, and people don’t have questions about it even when it contains errors.
- Open the history textbook! You can not virtualize everything! There is no more truth in Wikipedia than in a regular book. All that we do is a “set of realities,” and we are free to choose our perception of reality. People forgot about it? Definitely yes.
- Calacanis pays bloggers and diggers, MySpace and YouTube are used for advertising and PR. Is there a danger that Web 2.0 will be captured by “pros” who will create their own version of reality?
- Yes and no. Web 2.0 essentially means a long process, the result of which will be the unification of everything and everything. The Internet is starting to resemble the glue that connects everything we relate to. Yes, people are trying to use it for their own purposes. But this is the same thing as asking: “Can anyone create a better airline just at the expense of good PR?” Richard Branson can create an airline that is based on excellent PR. But he still needs to present the results of his work! You can not fly on his PR. Similarly, on the Internet - the service should work. You can focus on advertising - but this is not enough.
- And what if people, without even realizing it, push the service to the fact that it will stop working ...
“... people won't do that.” Eric Schmidt from Google is absolutely right in his strategy - “Do not fight with the Internet!” When you create a new service, think immediately what it will come to. The Internet is somewhat like gravity: if you want, you can fight it, fly — but you have to do everything right.
- Your name is associated with two main terms of our time - open-source and “Web 2.0”. What other word do you invent?
“We are working on the implementation of an interesting idea that will be“ preaching ”in the new magazine -“ Make. ”We are working to ensure that computers start interacting with the real world as“ custom-made ”. People are increasingly modifying certain devices. A large number of equipment is simply not used, is thrown out. People use their third or fourth digital camera - and what do they do with the previous one? After all, they can use it again. A huge amount of new technology like 3D printers is now worth about the same as primitive devices used to enter information into a computer at one time.
- That is the main idea - to return from the world of programs to the real world?
- Yes. The era of "custom production" is coming. It is like “artificial biology”, where “by request” chemical processes and materials are created - just as electronic equipment or other goods are produced, for example. We now have the opportunity to produce goods “invented” in Europe or the USA in those countries of the world where it will cost less. People can use full-fledged services to create something in the virtual world. Users, for example, create objects in Second Life or in Sketchup on Google Earth. The tools for developing “virtual” things, which can then be created in reality, have become more democratic, simple, widespread. For example, there are a couple of services with which you can get your avatar from Second Life printed in 3D format. I think this is extremely promising.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/30877/
All Articles