I’m going to show my ignorance here, but it won’t be the first time. I’ve been reading the feed for 2 Cents Worth, David Warlick’s blog lately. I’m learning a little about Web 2.0, but I must admit that I am not really sure what it really is. I think from reading David’s thoughts I have a general idea, and I know I want to learn more. This is why I have decided to go ahead and post my thoughts on the topic and how I think it is connected to Marie and Pierre Curie. I figure if I start talking about it, somebody might talk back and I will begin to learn more. Isn’t that how learning works? So, here goes…
I was sitting on one of my new rocking chairs this afternoon reading a biography of Marie Curie in search of an excerpt to share with my students tomorrow when I was reminded of David Warlick and Web 2.0. Here is what I read,
Marie and Pierre could have become rich by claiming all rights to working with radium. But instead they shared their information, telling how they purified the element, and more. They believed scientific research should benefit everyone. Marie and Pierre may also never have dreamed how valuable radium would become.
Does anyone else see any connections?
August 3, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Aredden,
What Marie and Pierre did, in sharing what they were learning with others certainly exemplifies elements of Web 2.0. In a Web 2 environment, worked by people who have adopted a read/write information attitude, this is how people learn and work — in conversation. They share, build, and grow.
Additionally, what the Curies and other collaborators learned and shared could be mixed and remixed in a variety of ways by virtue of the fact that the information stays out there, in the network, able to be attracted together in many ways, based on many criteria. The network itself can structure the ideas into new conclusions and new knowledge, arranged by talented information artisans.
The important question is, “How do we help students to become information artisans, within an education governance that seems interested only in making students information sponges, and then recite it when squeezed?”
Thanks for the “conversation”
– dave –
August 3, 2006 at 9:52 pm
[...] Ared Den, suggested an interesting analogy for the new Web in his (her) cleverly titled blog, “Clever Title Goes Here.” In Web 2.0 and The Curies, Den writes: I was sitting on one of my new rocking chairs this afternoon reading a biography of Marie Curie in search of an excerpt to share with my students tomorrow when I was reminded of David Warlick and Web 2.0. Here is what I read, Marie and Pierre could have become rich by claiming all rights to working with radium. But instead they shared their information, telling how they purified the element, and more. They believed scientific research should benefit everyone. Marie and Pierre may also never have dreamed how valuable radium would become. Does anyone else see any connections? [...]
August 3, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Web 2.0 doesn’t have a definition that sticks, and the stronger defintions focus on technical features and business models. The kind of sharing you refer to may be considered a part of Web 2.0 if you want it to, but it is neither necessary or sufficient to define Web 2.0.
To look at it from another angle “Web 1.0″ as invented by Tim Berners-Lee was explicitly and specifically created to share scientific research. It is and always has been a direct linear descendent of the process the Curies followed.
In the current discourse, “free content” or “Creative Commons” relate more closely to your Curie quote than “Web 2.0.”
August 4, 2006 at 7:39 am
[...] Posted by Web 2.0/education guru David Warlick on this comment thread: [...]
August 28, 2006 at 1:56 pm
I agree with your feeling about the Curies. What I figured out however, is that patents and intellectual property rights are actually bait to lure inventors into publicly sharing their discoveries / ideas / inventions. The associated 20-year virtual monopoly rule satisfies selfish greed, but as soon as the patent is out, the content is for everyone to see. Maybe this 20-year compromise between selfish feelings and philanthropical sharing is the price to pay for said sharing, although I am quite certain that outright sharing would be a far sight more beneficial to the world at large.
April 13, 2008 at 10:19 am
Why web2.0?