Comments on: Web 2.0: It’s made of people

By: Não existe blogosfera,… | Fabio Cipriani - Estratégia em Mídias Sociais

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:11:32 +0000

[...] a “blogosfera” como um meio, mais cedo você compreenderá como interagir com ela. É feita de pessoas. Converse com [...]

By: Here’s Why Women Will Drive The Future Of The Internet (And What The Internet Is Turning Into) | Group Commerce

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:37:32 +0000

[...] best definition we heard of the nebulous concept “Web 2.0″ was by Ross Mayfield and went something like this: Web 2.0 assumes the web is made of people, not just [...]

By: Here’s Why Women Will Drive The Future Of The Internet | Group Commerce

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:15:56 +0000

[...] best definition we heard of the nebulous concept “Web 2.0″ was by Ross Mayfield and went something like this: Web 2.0 assumes the web is made of people, not just [...]

By: CitroÃ«n, web 2.0 e mÃdia social. « Celso Bessa Post-its

CitroÃ«n, web 2.0 e mÃdia social. « Celso Bessa Post-its — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:39:49 +0000

[...] que o site da CitroÃ«n foi criado com estes conceitos. Pelo minha concepÃ§Ã£o de web 2.0 (”Web 2.0 it’s made of people“, Jeff Jarvis, 2005), nÃ£o Ã© bem [...]

By: Find People » komo news | KOMO People

Find People » komo news | KOMO People — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:23:39 +0000

[...] BuzzMachine Blog Archive Web 2.0: It s made of peopleWeb 2.0 is made of people. So was Web 1.0, only they didn t get it yet. But the truth is, they still don t get it. Yesterday, I d had it with hearing content moguls talk about how all the value [...]

By: People Finder » BuzzMachine Blog Archive Web 2.0: It s made of people

People Finder » BuzzMachine Blog Archive Web 2.0: It s made of people — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:45:30 +0000

By: The Heinz School - People - People Links

The Heinz School - People - People Links — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:39:27 +0000

By: Virtual Entrepreneur - » Blogosfera NÃ£o Existe?

Virtual Entrepreneur - » Blogosfera NÃ£o Existe? — Tue, 30 May 2006 14:11:59 +0000

[...] […] Você discordará de alguns, concordará com outros; gostar de alguns, odiar outros. É como nossa vida. Apenas pessoas. Quanto mais cedo você parar de tratar a ‘blogosfera’ como um meio, mais cedo você compreenderá como interagir com ela. É feita de pessoas. Converse com elas.’ [...]

By: Toni’s Garage » User Generated Content -> People Media

Toni’s Garage » User Generated Content -> People Media — Fri, 26 May 2006 03:32:46 +0000

[...] Many people don’t like the term user generated content. It’s because it focuses on content, not people. And people are what matters most on the new web. I mentioned this to Tony Conrad a while back, and yesterday I noticed that he’s using the term People Media instead of user generated content. I asked him why and he said it just seemed to make sense to him. I agree. I like it. Mainstream Media. People Media. [...]

By: Blog Corporativo Blog » Blog Archive » NÃ£o existe blogosfera,…

Blog Corporativo Blog » Blog Archive » NÃ£o existe blogosfera,… — Fri, 12 May 2006 19:28:58 +0000

[...] […] VocÃª discordarÃ¡ de alguns, concordarÃ¡ com outros; gostar de alguns, odiar outros. Ã‰ como nossa vida. Apenas pessoas. Quanto mais cedo vocÃª parar de tratar a “blogosfera” como um meio, mais cedo vocÃª compreenderÃ¡ como interagir com ela. Ã‰ feita de pessoas. Converse com elas.” [...]

By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » There is no blogosphere

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » There is no blogosphere — Wed, 10 May 2006 14:39:27 +0000

[...] We are not a mass, not a monolith, not even a medium. We’re just people talking. You’ll agree with some, disagree with some; like some, hate others. It’s just like life. It’s just people. The sooner you stop treating “the blogosphere” as a medium, the sooner you’ll understand how to interact with it. It’s made of people. Talk with them. [...]

By: irina slutsky

irina slutsky — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:53:01 +0000

cluetrain manifesto, 1991 = “we are not eyeballs…..” etc. as a recovering member of msm, i live these issues every day. amazing fodder for comic relief.

By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The value of networks of trust

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The value of networks of trust — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:44:14 +0000

[...] Repeat after me, after Butterfield, after Mayfield, after Soylent Green: Web 2.0 — It’s made of people. It’s not about controlling scarce assets in a post-scarcity world. It’s about trust. [...]

By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » My favorite podcasts

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » My favorite podcasts — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:21:03 +0000

[...] You see, she’s friendly and appealing and funny and real, unlike radio and TV “professionals,” who’ve been made fake on a scale from stiff to overbearing to obnoxious. Think about it: Would you really want to sit in a chair across from Rush Limbaugh or Randi Rhodes yelling at you, or any given newsreader boring you? Even Howard Stern isn’t Howard Stern off the air, he says. But I’ll just bet that Vassilian is Vassilian. That’s what makes her that ideal podcaster… and that’s what makes podcasts as unlike radio as weblogs are unlike newspapers. They’re made of people. Yet Vassilian is also not clumsy and crude and long-winded like some podcasters, bless their hearts. She is just slick enough; she cares about making a good show and thinks it through and the effort shows. She’s friendly and entertaining but informative and organized (which is to say, unlike some podcasters I won’t name, she knows that just because you can talk for two hours, you don’t have to). [...]

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:55:25 +0000

“Trust” is like fad and fashion, it is fickle and basically has no intrinsic value. It certainly has no lasting value. Today’s trust is tomorrow’s fading memory.

I vaguely recall a line in the I Ching that goes something to the effect, “Woe unto those who seek the trust of others, for their fortunes will rise and fall with those others’ opinions.”

Sorry, as it is and always has been and always will be, Content is King. People want to read a good story or watch an interesting event, they don’t want to listen to people talking about the books they read or the events the saw, or even worse, listen to people talk about who has the best opinions on books or events.

By: Beber Online » 2.0 attitude overdose

Beber Online » 2.0 attitude overdose — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:07:52 +0000

[...] Et pour conclure je citerai buzzmachine qui nous dit: Web2.0: it’s made of people. web 2.0, 2.0 [...]

By: Tish G

Tish G — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:51:31 +0000

The reason the Big Old Media folks aren’t getting it is that NONE of them talk to the people they are talking about.

When conferences can be amazingly costly, and the only way a “citizen journalist” or just plain old “people” can get into one is by volunteering or begging and pleading, THEY are never going to know what WE think. Nobody’s paying our expenses and few of us have the time to take off for conferences.

I was at We Media. It was closer than anything in CA. But, who knows…maybe by next year I’ll have a paid expense account, too.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sat, 08 Oct 2005 00:31:17 +0000

Stuart: My big, old media colleagues do. (And you gave a great spiel.)

By: Paul Story

Paul Story — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:21:18 +0000

This is a really tough subject. I’m an artist. I give my stuff away. I’m the author of the world’s first novel written for podcasting. I’d happily (and do so) release it to everyone on the planet for nothing. Web 2.0 is real and excites me. Jeff’s take on it is powerful and intelligent. However, it’s not the only opinion worth noting, nor is the mantra he chants, the complete solution.
This is an evolving phenomenon. I agree that the old business models surrounding content will soon be crippled and that we should rejoice the power shift. But I’d like to ask you a genuine question; born not from a position of preconception but in the hope of finding a practical way forward.
If it takes me a year to write a novel and it takes someone else a year to build a bridge, how will I make a living from my efforts in line with the creator of physical things? Given that it has taken me fifteen years of writing novels to get to this point it is too easy to say that I should do it for love or someone else will. I do indeed do it for love; but if an artist cannot feed a family, the source (of hard-won quality) will dry.
While there will always be a thousand people willing to do something for nothing and the occasional genius will shine through no matter what, this does not address the other 99% of artistic content we all thrive on.
We have to find a model that will accommodate this new paradigm. What is it? It is not a conversation no matter how much I like and admire Jeff’s stance.
I will continue to do what I’m doing – I’m privileged to do so. But let’s not blinker ourselves into thinking that there is no value in content even if we all agree that the old model is dying and all want to shovel the dirt on top of it.

Paul

By: Stewart Butterfield

Stewart Butterfield — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 20:51:57 +0000

Who’s “they”? (As in “they don’t get it”.)

By: Tom Loosemore

Tom Loosemore — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 19:51:09 +0000

Thanks Jeff – Vinod Khosla and your good self just saved the Web2.0 conference for me. I’ve been sitting at the back seething as speaker after speaker stood up and talked of monetising users – their contend and their communities. It was as if there’s a gold mine of other people’s creativity waiting to be mined (pillaged?)

The Web (1.0, 2.0, whatever) isn’t just people; it’s about the most open, democratic media space humankind has yet developed – a shared space that enables collective and individual human participation, expression and representation.

Enable people to express themselves, and share their collective wisdom, and you might make a buck – hell, sort our a reputation system that isn’t tied to a commercial transaction and you’ll hit pay dirt.

But try to monetise their stuff – our stuff – my stuff… and you’re toast.

Mind you, making a buck isn’t the only game in town. Making money isn’t the reason why people create stuff on the web. It isn’t indeed the reason most people start creating *any* form of media, despite what that old hippy said on stage yesterday.

By: Noel Guinane

Noel Guinane — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 19:24:00 +0000

Ian, you sound like a machine.

I’m sure you’re making sense, but I do wish you’d put that commercial pepper canister you like sprinkling over your conversation (user interactions … aggregating artifacts … exposing user generated content) back on the shelf where it belongs and show us your human side. : )

By: Ian McAllister

Ian McAllister — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:26:24 +0000

Speaking for MSN, some of us do get it. We’re not going to shift models overnight, but we get that the interactions between users generate artifacts and that those artifacts can be aggregated and great user experiences generated from them. We don’t want to “own” user generated content, we just want to get a handle on it and build cool features on top of it. This is the same model as flickr.

MSN, AOL, and Yahoo! have obviously invested a lot of money and resources in the past in buying and creating content. We’ll still do that to some extent but you’ll see us using technology and software to expose user generated content also. Both types of content have value.

By: Larry Faria

Larry Faria — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 17:44:22 +0000

I can see why the MSM still talks content over people. It’s what they know and fits their business model for making money. Talking about people, sharing and trust sounds like so much touchy-feely to them. Basically, you’re discussing philosophy in French to English speaking shopkeepers. They’ll never get it until somebody gives them a business model that can make money. Then they’ll catch on quick.