The first trail on the map.

Facebook- that was the one phenomena that set me off into the fascinating world of Web 2.0. But of course, while Facebook is the "face" of this issue- it only is one illustration of all that is possible online. This forces one back to the basics, and thus has begun my journey into learning the language that envelops so many disciplines/fields- from computer sciences and bio-technology to media studies and visual communication design.

In the course of my readings- I came across what I can say to date, has best articulated my preoccupations with this subject. David Beer and Roger Burrows, in an article titled 'Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations' [Sociological Research Online; 12 (5) 17] talk of the challenges that lie ahead of Sociologists in analyzing and studying a context/setting that is so dynamic and fast-changing.

In a section titled 'Sociology of Web 2.0'- Beer and Burrows talk of three major, interrelated issues that need sociological scrutiny:

1. The idea of what is termed the "prosumer" or the producer-consumer of content online. This possibility leads us to problematize the concepts of "producer" and "consumer". Beer and Burrows emphasize that while a lot of networks and sites allowing overwhelming user-generated production/consumption of  content are free, there is still large commercial underpinnings to them. Secondly, and most interesting for me- is the idea that it is the users' profiles, and the everyday/mundane that is increasingly "prosumed" .
2. The second issue that they highlight is the "the mainstreaming of private information posted to the public domain" This deals with the fact that so many of us share so much of our "private" everyday lives online. This has obviously seen a shift in our notions of what remains "private" and "public". The blurring and often gray division between the two has posed many a challenge to portals, websites  and networks online in formulating their policies on privacy. 
3. The third issue is that of 'democratization' or the notion of a "people's internet". Web 2.0 has allowed for previously unimaginable kinds and levels of participation and collaborations online and off. This includes issues related to citizenship and governance. But how democratic the net really is, is yet to be seen. 

The above three points sum up in the most lucid manner, everything that has captured my attention as a curious soul, if not researcher. However, I am still struggling with bringing in a certain focus and clarity on how exactly I would like to engage with these three issues discussed above.

At the moment I see two big challenges ahead of me, in making a progress with this course. One- what sites do I locate this  these issues in? Blogs, Social Networking Sites, Wikis?? which ones? For now- it is Social Networking sites that most capture my curiosity. Further, how do I actually go about it, is another question for another post altogether.
The second challenge I see ahead of me is the socio-cultural milieu I plan to position myself in. I.e.- the "Indian"* context. This is in a way a double-edged sword. On one hand, in studying something like networking or notions/values of privacy- "India" , with all its contradictions and contradistinctions,can provide a rich complexity on how it is "prosuming" Web 2.0. On the other hand however, India is still a place where such a resource, if one may call it that, is still not ubiquitous. It remains in the hands of a niche, an elite class of people. This in itself limits the audience I hope to collaborate with as part of my study.

Well for now..this is what I muse about.  Till the next trail on the map...

Cheers!

* I use the term "Indian"  rather hesitatingly, but do so for the lack of any other. I would like to say though, that I am aware that "Indian" can be a complex nay, a problematic term when used in the blanket manner that I have. However, till I have figured out a better term to substitute it with... kindly indulge my usage of it. :)