On Devoting Web 2.0 Style Energy to 0.5 Technologies
I have to admit it: I'm confused as to why we as a nonprofit tech professionals are devoting so much time to promoting and following Web 2.0 stuff. Idealware is a bit guilty of this a bit ourselves of late. I struggle with it - these Web 2.0 articles get a ton of traffic and click-throughs, but are they really useful to the sector?
Over the last year, there's been a huge number of articles Web 2.0 techniques and tools for nonprofits. Tremendous hype about how this is the next generation (or a total revolution, depending on who's talking) of websites or software or nonprofits in general. It certainly implies that a lot of people think that Web 2.0 is a key solution to nonprofit tech woes. Is that actually true?
Certainly the nonprofit software field needs as much content as it can get, but wouldn't it be great to have this much coverage of, say, constituent databases? Detailed lists and tips on content management systems? Are we actually thinking that's it more important for a nonprofit to be using de.licio.us or YouTube than to have a useful eNewsletter? That the bulk of nonprofits should vault over a professional website to go straight to participatory media?
Take a look at a summary of the things that at least one technologist at an actual nonprofit finds more useful than Web 2.0 stuff (copiers! windows as a service! voice response systems!). Not sexy, but useful.
Not to be cynical, but how much of our excitement about Web 2.0 tools is due to the fact that it's simply more interesting (and perhaps easier) for us as nonprofit tech professionals to talk about?
Yes, we absolutely need trailblazers. We need people to help define the shape of things to come - which might be Web 2.0 tools, among other things. But if nonprofit tech support providers all blaze the trail, who is bringing up the rear? Who is helping those in the middle and those lagging behind the pack, to make sure they don't fall further and further behind in the journey?
Over the last year, there's been a huge number of articles Web 2.0 techniques and tools for nonprofits. Tremendous hype about how this is the next generation (or a total revolution, depending on who's talking) of websites or software or nonprofits in general. It certainly implies that a lot of people think that Web 2.0 is a key solution to nonprofit tech woes. Is that actually true?
Certainly the nonprofit software field needs as much content as it can get, but wouldn't it be great to have this much coverage of, say, constituent databases? Detailed lists and tips on content management systems? Are we actually thinking that's it more important for a nonprofit to be using de.licio.us or YouTube than to have a useful eNewsletter? That the bulk of nonprofits should vault over a professional website to go straight to participatory media?
Take a look at a summary of the things that at least one technologist at an actual nonprofit finds more useful than Web 2.0 stuff (copiers! windows as a service! voice response systems!). Not sexy, but useful.
Not to be cynical, but how much of our excitement about Web 2.0 tools is due to the fact that it's simply more interesting (and perhaps easier) for us as nonprofit tech professionals to talk about?
Yes, we absolutely need trailblazers. We need people to help define the shape of things to come - which might be Web 2.0 tools, among other things. But if nonprofit tech support providers all blaze the trail, who is bringing up the rear? Who is helping those in the middle and those lagging behind the pack, to make sure they don't fall further and further behind in the journey?
Subscribe through Feedburner
3 Comments:
I completely hear you on this, Laura. I think it's a matter of organizations needing to be very clear about the functions that need to be accomplished and then the most appropriate technology strategies for making them happen.
Depending on the audience and the activity, I think that Web 2.0 is indispensable. If you're working on advocacy with young people, you'd better be looking into YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, etc. or you're going to be dead in the water.
At the same time, if like Allen, you're serving homeless people and looking for tools to provide more efficient, effective services, you may need to start with looking at copiers and voicemail before you venture into considering anything else.
As with all things, you need to find the right tool for the job.
Michele
Laura,
No doubt that Web 2.0 has been totally overhyped. It does distract many non-profits from current, down-to-earth problems they are having with basic technology. People are struggling to make basic website updates regularly (because they have to learn HTML or learn a quirky CMS) - and to keep their contact list in a large messy Excel file. Having said that, there are two aspects of Web 2.0 which I think are making a difference:
1) Web-based services - many of which are free or very low cost. Now you can do invoicing, project management, member management and much more without investing thousands into software, its installation and maintenance.
2) Much more improved interfaces of web software thanks to new technologies like AJAX. technology is not an end in itself but when it auto-saves what you type, responds faster etc. - it makes a real contribution to your non-profit being more effective.
My 2 cents :-)
Thanks for a thought-provoking post!
Dmitry,
Chief Apricot at Wild Apricot
Dmitri, I completely agree. Web 2.0 is a broad term, and I was using it a little too narrowly, to mean just social media stuff. But I agree that web apps and AJAX are making a real difference.
Michele, I feel the need to play devil's advocate here. While I agree that social media stuff is useful for some orgs, depending on their mission, I think that's really limited to a very small number of orgs compared to the sector as a whole.
So you mention advocacy with young people. I could see usefulness to those who are specifically trying to rally youth to some political cause (like the Genocide Intervention Network, for instance). But the vast majority of organizations working with youth are focused on very tangible outcomes and often face-to-face meetings - so for instance, sex eductation, drug prevention, engaging them in learning about nature, mentoring, etc. For these types of organizations, it’s possible that social networking type applications could be useful for outreach, but it would be way, way down my list of useful software applications. That’s my overall point here – I’m not arguing that participatory media is useless, and no one should consider them. Just that it’s not useful enough to enough organizations to warrant anywhere near the type of attention it’s receiving.
Post a Comment
<< Home