Difference between revisions of "Web 2.0 Article for Presbyterian Outlook"
(→Highlight why Web 2.0 meshes well with Presbyterian structures.) |
(→Highlight why Web 2.0 meshes well with Presbyterian structures.) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Highlight why Web 2.0 meshes well with Presbyterian structures.== | ==Highlight why Web 2.0 meshes well with Presbyterian structures.== | ||
| + | (you're the expert here--I'm still a "noob" Presbyterian!) | ||
===Every member a minister = every member an editor/author/contributor=== | ===Every member a minister = every member an editor/author/contributor=== | ||
| − | |||
===Discern as a community = creating as a community=== | ===Discern as a community = creating as a community=== | ||
===Allows for minority voices to be heard while the majority still make the decisions=== | ===Allows for minority voices to be heard while the majority still make the decisions=== | ||
Revision as of 21:00, 6 October 2007
Contents
Define Web 2.0 briefly with examples like Facebook, YouTube, WIkipedia.
(Some rambling thoughts here -- need to chop down)
In the beginning, there was Gutenberg. If you owned a printing press, you printed the text, and everyone else read it--and that's about all they could do, short of using your text to prop up a loose table leg. The beginning of the internet (what we'll call "Web 1.0) was much the same: If you owned a website, you put information on it, and everyone else read it. That's all--a static web. But these days, if you go to a website, it's likely you can (after reading it) change it too, by adding your own thoughts, reactions and comments right there--on someone else's website. Many sites now allow you to add your own labels or "tags" to the content you find there, or add pictures, documents, or even entirely new pages on entirely new topics. You might vote on some of the content, raising or lowering its prominence on the site. The owner of the site still has editorial control over it, but has allowed those who use it to share in the creation and development of content. This is called "user generated content," and is a hallmark of a new generation of websites--sometimes called the "interactive" web, or the "semantic" web -- or, most often, just Web 2.0. Let's look at some well-known examples:
Amazon.com
YouTube
Wikipedia
(left out facebook, because they're doing a separate article on social networking -- perhaps we can reference it in passing so people know social networking is web 2.0?)
Highlight why Web 2.0 meshes well with Presbyterian structures.
(you're the expert here--I'm still a "noob" Presbyterian!)
Every member a minister = every member an editor/author/contributor
Discern as a community = creating as a community
Allows for minority voices to be heard while the majority still make the decisions
Give a few brief hypothetical/real life examples of Presbyterians using Web 2.0
(we'd have to make sure we aren't repeating something from another article being written).
Top Ten Web 2.0 sites for Churches
- Google Docs (our church uses this extensively for planning and sharing info)
- Google Calendar (get your church scheduling syncronized)
- SourceForge.net (find free/open source software for church use, i.e. OpenOffice.org and music/slide/presentation software)
- PayPal.com (great for small-church fundraisers)
- facebook (community building)
- Wordpress (great choice for maintaining web 2.0 church website)
- SurveyMonkey (church polls & surveys)
- Wikia (free wiki hosting service that could be used by church groups)
