Great web 2.0 video on YouTube
Mon 5 Feb 2007, 9:44 pm
I’m sure I have seen this linked before, so excuse me if I am late to the party. But Web 2.0…The Machine is Us/ing Us is a very slick video about the value of standards, XML, machine-readable information, and other stuff put into the context of Web 2.0.
I suppose if I watched it a few more times I’d find something to criticise, but for now, I’m just so impressed with how well this conveys what is going on and why people are excited about what is happening on the web these days. And the thing is just cool. I think it is a great four-minute primer for people who aren’t as immersed in all this stuff as a lot of us are. (I got the link emailed to me by my director, which is a good indication of how well the video speaks to people who don’t spend every waking minute on the internets.)
The fact that it was made by an academic really blows my mind (though the wacky pun/ctuation is a dead giveaway). The video is by Michael Wesch, Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Kansas State University. Wesch is apparently part of a group that blogs at Digital Ethnography, which looks like a site to watch (they have a feed) if you are interested in digital projects in academe.
Update: If you like this video, you are a vain, cultish rube in a tizzy. Just thought you’d like to know. Deleted (and de-linked) on account of being petty, peevish, and poorly-considered. Apologies all around.
- License:
- File under: Social software
- Comments? 8
That link is fantastic! I hadn’t seen it. Great find.
Comment by Benjamin — February 5, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
Your update is an object lesson in the difficulty of having frank discussions. Yes, each of those words (or an alternate form) appeared in one comment or another. And, taken out of context, they sound pretty awful. Are you ready to have your posts and comments cherry-picked that way?
Comment by walt crawford — February 8, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
I guess I’m asking for it, Walt. The perils of posting in a bad mood. At least I put it on my own blog instead of mucking up yours.
I thought those three particular comments (in their overall composition, not those particular words) were insulting in the way that they didn’t go after the logic of the video but the supposed gullibility of those who liked it.
I think it may be time for a self-imposed time out…
Comment by Steve — February 8, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
I notice that YouTube is not without its share of snarks. Some days the snarks really push my buttons. That’s why I ignore Slashdot for the most part, too. Pulls me into the vortex.
Don’t take too long a time-out. If you’re asking me, I consider it over. (Waving magic wand)
Comment by K.G. Schneider — February 9, 2007 @ 5:03 am
oops. I thought you were referring to comments on YouTube. Oops. Oops. Oops.
Anyway, I liked the video. It didn’t change my life, but I thought it was clever; I particularly enjoyed how the text itself reflected the motility and interactivity of text on the web.
Comment by K.G. Schneider — February 9, 2007 @ 5:09 am
To clarify: the links I took out of the update went to comments on a post at Walt at Random (none by Walt himself).
*Returns to corner*
Comment by Steve — February 9, 2007 @ 7:05 am
OK, Steve, you come out of the corner and I’ll return to posting and commenting. We all have bad days. (For the record, I didn’t ask Steve to remove the links…and, to make things absolutely clear, I have nothing negative to say about anyone who finds the video in question valuable, awesome, whatever. Just because I didn’t and don’t get it and am a little astonished by the sheer quantity and unanimity of link love it’s getting, doesn’t mean others won’t find it worthwhile.)
Comment by walt crawford — February 9, 2007 @ 9:13 am
Damn, I missed on on all this blog drama just because of alphabetical order. (My Bloglines subscriptions are in alphabetical order, so I don’t get to Walt at Random and See Also till rather late in the game, unless I decide to start from the bottom, as I did today.)
I just found that video disturbing in that it kept erasing huge amounts of text. . . . I know, I know–it’s all saved in the history of Wikipedia–but it’s still too much like rewriting history for me.
Comment by Laura — February 21, 2007 @ 4:14 pm