...or when does 2.0 stop being adaptation of old forms and start being something new?
We talk about2.o being a new thing but in terns of epistemology is it really new? I've seen the Epic 2015
video and the potential dismantling of the news media, but we have to admit that this may come to pass and it may not. CBS started in radio, but it has grown in many ways since its foudning. We speak of blogs, podcasts, RSS feeds, and myspace pages, but these are new ways to reach out to people, not necessarily new epistemelogical or methodological forms. They are essentially ways to cut communication time and geography.
However, there are some emerging knowledge aggregation tools such as google's search alagrythrm, wikipedia, or prediction markets
. Each of these info sources has strengths or weaknesses depending on the individual's info need. Yet, we cannot say that these tools entirely replace the epististemological or methodological forms such as quantative or qualitative forms of knowledge creation. They may have some impact on the nature of expertiese, but I do not think that we will see the elimination of expertise, since the knowledgebase from which they draw should include a diversity of expertiese.
Mashups, prepublished works, soical networking, efficiencies of scale
, and knowledge communities may bring people and information together, but are we seeing these really transform into new forms of knowing? When do we move from communications to something more cognitive? I listed some examples above of possible first-steps. Or, does the ease in communication transform the cognitive by necessity? Does the nature of knowing really change or are we just talking about ease of communication?