and Social Media

Although the definition of Web 2.0 is still open for discussion, some technolo-gies and services such as common blogs (e.g. Blogger), video sharing sites (e.g.

Youtube), social-network sites (e.g. Facebook), and wiki’s (i.e. Wikipedia) were ac-cepted as typical Web 2.0 technologies (Fine, 2007; Pascu, 2008). O’Reilly defined Web 2.0 as a platform, which consists of all connection devices (2005). Cormode and Krishnamurty preferred the definition of “the web sites which allow connec-tion to the user profiles and links to friends through adding a strong component to its structure, enable sharing and tagging written and visual contents such as

M. Nejat Özüpek 100

texts, videos and pictures and encourage the contents with quality production are called” (2008: 4). Akar (2011: 14–15) expressed Web 2.0 as “a social computer term or a social media environment with contents established by the user”.

Numerous researchers and information technology (IT) implementers claimed that the use of Web 2.0 technologies or services has great significance in terms of different perspectives (O’Reilly, 2005; Fine, 2007; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010).

Kaplan and Haenlein asserted that Web 2.0 is a new way for users to use the Internet. During the period of Web 1.0, the content were provided by content providers such as Online Britannica Encyclopedia. During the period of Web 2.0, the content are frequently established and modified through the participation and cooperation of all users. Kaplan and Haenlein claim that Web 2.0 is a technological and ideological platform for the evolution of social media (2010). When compared to static web pages of Web 1.0, Web 2.0 is regarded as a significant movement which enables creative and cooperative employment of the web through easy-to-use web instruments (O’Reilly, 2005).

In this sense, Web 2.0 technology, which compromises blogs, social sharing, and network sites, enables creativity and participation without requiring spe-cialization. On the contrary, Web 1.0 failed in providing opportunities for users to actively participate. In other words, traditional media instruments don’t pro-vide people with the opportunity to participate or propro-vide limited participation while Web 1.0 technologies gave people the opportunity to participate. By its very nature, however, technical information was required to use this opportunity to participate but Web 2.0 technologies don’t require technical information to be creative or participate and thus more participants became active thanks to it. O’Reilly explained this occasion as follows; “Web 2.0 is defined with Trans-parency, Honesty, Trust and Reputation are supported by a simple, convenient, participant, self-service and non-central model. When compared to static web pages of Web 1.0, Web 2.0 seems a meaningful movement which enables a creative and cooperative usage of web through its easy-to-use web instruments. Web 2.0 has a participation architecture which presents data and services coming from various resources including the individual users, updates this information and services, consumes and blends with the others” (O’Reilly, 2005). Creativity and sharing are the basic feature of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 has the potential of mutually maximizing the common information of participants (Karakiza, 2014: 385). The extensive use of Web 2.0 technologies shows that the Internet transformed into a literate web from the absolute reader for the ordinary reader instruments and for those without IT specialization (Richardson, 2006; Cormode & Krishnamurty, 2008: 2–3). During the period before Web 2.0 (or during the period of Web 1.0),

Digitalization and Civil Society 101

only users having IT specialization such as codification were able to establish the web contents and the Internet was a read-only instrument for the most ordinary users (final users). With the extensive use of Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, wiki’s, and SNS(Social Networking Services), ordinary users had the skills to cre-ate (writing) web contents. Thus, the Internet turned into the litercre-ate web for ordinary users (Shi, 2012: 347).

To sum up the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, Web 1.0 complicates individual usage while Web 2.0 facilitates the use of it. Web 2.0 has a dynamic structure and individual choices are in the foreground. It is possible to intervene in the posted topics on Web 2.0 which gives even amateur users the opportunity to comment and make practical reactions to the topics. Web 1.0 has a static struc-ture and it has the feastruc-ture of accessing information. Web 2.0 has the feastruc-tures of a platform where human beings can interact with each other, not only through reading but also through participation. Web 1.0 was the biggest data store in the world while Web 2.0 is regarded as the biggest activity field of the world. The effect field of Web 1.0 was narrow while Web 2.0 has a larger effect field and appeals to more people. Since Web 2.0 has the interactive feature and allows feedback, it has a ring to it (Lincoln, 2009: 9; Koçyiğit, 2015: 21–22).

Web 2.0 technologies which provide those opportunities to the users are called

“social media” in general terms. This new environment to produce and share in-formation may be considered to be the environment for web based services where individuals meet in the virtual space as an Internet based structure (Toprak et al., 2009: 29). Smith (2010: 330) defines social media as the virtual platforms where the problems related to interactivity and shopping were discussed and defined. In a broader definition, social media, generally, may be defined as the Internet based application which comprises “the media visuals which are formed by the consum-ers, informed and archived by the convenient experiences or shared by the sensible consumers for easy access and established by the consumers” (Blackshaw, 2006).

Seltzer and Mitrook have claimed that social media sites such as blogs became the most convenient instrument for relationships (2007). Kim defines social media as the virtual societies which users establish and share (2010: 216). Social media is a realm where information, different ideas, and experiences are shared throughout community-oriented websites and where the Internet is rapidly embedded in our lives (Weinberg, 2009: 1).

Since continuous innovation and change occurs in social media, it isn’t easy to clearly classify the social media platforms. In this context, Mayfield defines social media instruments in six sub-categories, which include: social network sites, blogs, wiki’s, podcasts, forums, and content sharing sites (2008: 6–8). On

M. Nejat Özüpek 102

the contrary, other researchers (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008: 233, Levy, 2009: 124–125) turned this classification into nine sub-groups, including: social network sites, vocational network sites, content sharing sites, blogs, micro-blogs, social bookmarking sites, wiki’s, podcasts, and forums.

According to Kaplan & Haenlein, social media can be classified using two major key measurements: social presence/media richness and self-presentation/

self disclosure (2010); however, social media may be classified into two groups in terms of its main purposes (Kotler, Kartajaya & Setiawan, 2010):

a) The meaningful social media where users express themselves through sharing texts, videos, pictures, and music

b) The cooperative social media where users share information and content and, generally, work together to achieve a common objective

c) The employees who exchange text messages within a local network established in an institution. The individuals in the e-mail lists and email groups are the first examples of social online networks. Afterwards, the development of tech-nologies such as blogs, wiki’s, and social network sites which provide social cooperation caused the incredible increase of online virtual societies where people get in touch, share information, and intercommunicate with each other.

Today, WWW is shifted through areas of Web 2.0 and is turned into a social-ized web concept (Fu, Liu & Wang, 2007: 675).

The reason for the differences in the categorization efforts is the continuous non-stop technological innovation and development in social media, as stated above.

Continuously, new applications and innovations are added to social media. This occasion complicates a fixed classification in the categorization.