PLEXAV is shown above. The color of each node indicates whether the node is an image, a link, a page, etc. The greatest value of such a visualization is that it begs the question, “What paradigm might better facilitate the creation, organization, searching and surfing of information?”

1. O’Reilly ought not profit as a result of this type of exploitative behavior, and
2. Whatever the present phenomena may be called, those responsible for making it a reality ought to share in the privilege of using the name.

Both these reasons make sense. O’Reilly, as the outfit credited with coining the term, must be held accountable for attempting to exploit those of us who have conceptualized and implemented the ideas to which the term ‘Web2.0′ has been attached. Additionally, the term ought to generically define the present phenomena and should therefore be freely usable.There is another powerful reason to now jettison ‘Web2.0′. By asserting proprietary rights in the term, O’Reilly has chosen exploitation as Web2.0’s defining trait. This cannot stand. We must reach consensus on a name that signifies a point of departure from ‘Web2.0′ and the idea of exploitation. The name must also indicate an ideal towards which we may strive, a standard by which we measure our progress in realizing a vision for the Web and for people in general.

Perhaps O’Reilly was blinded by greed and thereby failed to notice the trait that accurately defines the current state-of-affairs, Cooperation. In the spirit of cooperation, I suggest that we adopt the name Web2.U. By including a portion of the old term, one is easily able to distinguish the new name. At the same time, by incorporating the ideal that the web is fundamentally about each person who participates in its creation and use, we acknowledge the value of the individual. It is only in recognizing and valuing the individual, You, that the web will be transformed into a space that promotes the ideals of personal growth and cooperation. See Web2.U - A Standard for more.

To allay any concerns, I disclaim all right, title and interest in and to the word Web2.U as it may be used in association with any thing.

Summum Bonum.

How does one enable the mutual or reciprocal action between a person and a computer. There are many who’d argue that one finds such reciprocal action today. Typing on the keyboard, seeing the typed letters appear on the screen and altering what one types depending upon what one sees on the screen (typos) provides a sufficient example. However, when one looks past such a superficial interaction towards the types of interativity one finds occuring between two people, the question itself takes on dimensionality absent in the current treatment of computer interactivity. One solution is to develop a model of “personhood” and employ such a model in software. Leading to another question - What is personhood and how might it be modeled?

in-ter-ac-tive ( n t r- k t v) adj.

1. Acting or capable of acting on each other.

2. Computer Science. Of or relating to a program that responds to user activity.

Interaction - Interaction is a response experience in which both actor and reactor are engaged in a mutually affecting experience. This means that the system is comprised of two interactive partners. In the case of interactive media, one partner may only be mildly interactive (such as a computer) and only programmatically so. While most of the computer actor’s actions are the result of predetermined programming, if the variations are ample enough, it can be said that this actor is interactive (making it an interactor).

The future of computer interaction will necessarily include the computer as an interactor and not simply as the medium within which people interact. The question to answer is this “How does one go about making the computer an interactor?