The new world of Web 2.0
One afternoon in 2006, frustration and anger got the better of the Dean of Melbourne’s St Patrick’s Cathedral. He stormed out of his cloister, and used all the strength in his voice and gestures to move away a group of young people who had been loitering and skating on the church’s grounds. The young people reciprocated, apparently entertained by the old man’s loss of composure. An argument ensued, and the priest resorted to racist and slanderous abuse against the group. (McMahon, 2007)
Would not this event have been recorded on one of the group’s mobile camera, it would have fallen into obscurity, joining so many other ignored urban battles young people experience often in Australian cities. But in July 2007 it was discovered on YouTube, a popular video-file sharing site, by both domestic and overseas mainstream media journalists. The Dean’s displayed behaviour attracted criticism from the general public, and, despite the support of his colleagues in the archdiocese, he felt forced to resign from his post at the cathedral. (Zwartz, 2007)
This event highlights the power of new web technologies in re-shaping the religious media environment. The phrase, Web 2.0, was first coined by Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle to describe a new set of Internet applications such as social networking sites, wikis, file sharing networks, folksonomies, and syndication sites. Social networking sites include websites such as myspace® and Facebook, where users create their own personal web pages in order to create and maintain connections with other users. Wikis are single web pages that allow for “collaborative authoring”, i.e. data input and editing from many authors in any location. File sharing networks include sites like of flickr™ and YouTube™, where users offer still images and videos (respectively) for storage and free distribution among other users. Folksonomies (“folk taxonomies”) are websites like Technorati™ and del.icio.us, where “tags” are employed by the sites’ users to collect, order and reference information found elsewhere on the world wide web. Syndication sites, or “feeds”, are pages that appear in a range of web sites, like weblogs and wikis, that contain data read by web-based programs (like Bloglines.com and Google Reader) and some web browsers (such as Mozilla Firefox and the latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer), in order to alert these programs to new information published on their host sites. A user can create an account on Google Reader and list the location of the syndication feeds of all the weblogs the user likes to read. Google Reader will then alert the user when new information is posted on the weblogs.
These new systems of online information storage and sharing represent a new step in the evolution of online technology, communication and culture. Ten years ago, as Internet connections started to become commonplace in Australian households, online communication accessible to the ordinary user was limited to email, news groups, instant messaging and chat rooms designed by outside operators. Personal web pages were created by only those who had some time to learn basic HTML script, and some money to buy web space through their Internet service provider (ISP). These pages were fairly static; any change to web content required the author to remove the page from the site, edit it and send it back. Audiences, or users, of online content were separated by its producers by technical knowledge, access to online storage space, time and money.
Now web-based applications allow users to create and store information online without as much need for knowledge of HTML and other web languages or the purchase of web storage space. Web 2.0 applications allow ordinary users to create personal web pages, contribute to the creation of online content on group pages, store information online free of charge, and even create systems of online ordering and retrieval.
The factors that paved the way for the increasing use and availability of these applications include:
Increased access to high-speed data connections, which has prompted demand for the flow of large media files
- Increased ownership of mobile media production technologies, including mobile phones with still and motion cameras, which have allowed users of Web 2.0 technologies to upload media to these sites.
- Raised awareness and diminished trust of ideologically-driven large media corporations that control most news and information sites, and a desire for alternative sites of news.
- The success of the open-source movement, that has attracted many program developers to offer software and online technologies to the public without charge.
Considering these factors, Web 2.0 may be seen as a challenge to the institutional structure of information distribution in our society, or even a revolutionary act. The buzz words that are often associated with Web 2.0 are produsers and democratisation. In the world of Web 2.0, the producers of online content are not separated from their audiences. They are, in fact, members of the same group. People logging on to YouTube™ or Facebook to check for new information are using the same sites in the same way as those logging on to offer their own video or music creations. The audiences of YouTube™ and Facebook consist of both users and producers of the sites’ contents.
As a consequence, Web 2.0 applications provide alternative settings for the sharing of information that may be rejected, downplayed or ignored by mainstream media platforms. Never before has the Internet had the potential to raise the awareness of issues that are important to audiences not recognised by mainstream media producers. Web 2.0 offers a glimpse of a utopian vision where control of the flow of information is taken from large communication corporations and given back to the public.
Bryan Murley likens the arrival of Web 2.0 with the modern Protestant theological campaign of “the priesthood of all believers”. Just as the Reformation challenged the 16th century Catholic premise that God is available to the laity only through the priest, the new web challenges the presumption that information is only available to the public through media organisations and their journalists. As in Luther’s campaign that no intermediary is needed to communicate with God, new Internet applications allow direct access to find and contribute to the flow of information in society. (Murley, 2005)
While Murley does not want to draw too large an analogy between Web 2.0 and Christ as “the bridge” between information and public, and God and humanity, his thesis does highlight the claim that these new Internet technologies are ideological in nature. Where some media scholars argue that no new technology enters society without some sort of moral or ideological value, they see Web 2.0 being embraced by people who seek a change in the current system of information distribution and control.
Weblogs, known more conveniently as blogs, are by far the most popular manifestation of Web 2.0. According to a 2006 press release by Technorati™, in that year the blogosphere contained approximately 57 million sites, and the number was growing by 100,000 daily (Sifry, 2006). This year, Technorati(TM)’s “About” page claims those numbers are 112.8 million and 175,000, respectively (Technorati, 2008). The blog is, in its simplest form, an online diary, a collection of articles (or posts), organised in reverse chronological order. The diary page is powered by a blogging program which allows the user to enter new information without having to edit and republish the entire site. Blogger™, WordPress.com and TypePad® are among the most popular blogging software programs, that allow users with limited knowledge of web design to produce individual blogs either on the users’ own storage site or on the program’s own server. Most of these blog programs are free of charge.
Blogs don’t exist in isolation from each other. As authors read books, so bloggers also read others’ blogs. Bloggers respond to comments made about their posts. They publish lists of their favourite bloggers on their blog’s front page or sidebar. They make references to posts on other blogs, with hyperlinks so readers can follow conversations occurring over multiple sites. Bloggers recognise they are part of a blogging community, recognise common blogging etiquette and rules of behaviour, work to build friendships and relationships of collegiality and trust with other writers.
What impact can be seen of blogging and Web 2.0 on religion? Since the Internet became a household name, we have used the world wide web for religious purposes. We have joined chat rooms to talk about how to make relevant and inclusive worship spaces. We’ve subscribed to email lists to connect with people of the same denomination across the globe. We’ve read online magazines that criticise the actions of bishops and priests. Our churches have made web pages displaying photos of our buildings and published our pastors’ contact details and preaching times. We’ve joined newsgroups seeking alternative forms of spiritual practice. Almost every form of religious community in the offline (“real”?) world has had a counterpart form on the web, where people congregate to pray together, worship together, discuss social justice and theology, write songs and make art, make community and care for one another.
If we see these traditional online, or Oldweb, gathering spaces as “online churches”, then blogs can be likened to “online house churches”. While the email lists, newsgroups and chat rooms of Oldweb were constructed by religious groups and organisations, whose moderators were relatively faceless and impersonal, blogs have become meeting points where the host is only too keen to let him or herself be known, to welcome the user into “his/her own space”. And while email lists and chat rooms had relatively few links to other online places, bloggers are only too eager to show you which other house churches they attend, invite you to join them there, and give you directions. The networks of blogs becomes a neighbourhood of house churches, where bloggers and audiences meet in different places, even at the same time.
Sociologists, theologians, and cultural theorists involved in the fifteen year old tradition of research into religion online have always debated about the future of Christianity, and whether the Internet will lead to a rebirth of a spirit-filled people, or to the ultimate demise of organised religion. Many now agree that online forms of religious community serve more as a complement than as a replacement to religious expression and communion in the offline world. For many Internet users, the virtual provides a space to explore new forms of religious expression that can be carried into life offline, and for them the virtual church offers a glimpse for what “real” church could be like. For the same people, however, there are elements of “real” church that cannot be replicated online. So they seek a harmony in their online and offline religious experiences.
