Compare and contrast two opposite cases where Web 2.0 tools have been Essay

Compare and contrast two opposite cases where Web 2.0 tools have been used to build an identity and encourage participation, and explain why you think one was successful and the other wasnt - Essay Example What is common in both the viewpoints is the idea that the new developments in information and communication technologies certainly change the way we interact, civic engagement and community creation. The participation has the ability and potential to make the difference. The awareness about the possibilities of participation is a defining feature of the present democratic societies. â€Å"The crisis of political participation† is the product of the dilemmas of this awareness on participation (Bryan, Tsagarousianou and Tambini, 1998, p. 3). However, more electronic democracy could only be achieved through universal availability of internet and open discourses on internet. According to Bryan, Tsagarousianou and Tambini (1998), although access to information network is a public right, the cost and private ownership of such infrastructure and technologies lead to a tension between both. Bughin, Chui, and Johnson have asserted that â€Å"companies will need a combination of incentives of encourage customer participation† (2008, p.28). In the case study of Coloplast’s web supported community of health care practitioners, it has been found that â€Å"web communities in the professional market build on preexisting communities, enabling community members to intensify the activities of the community to expand its reach† (Andersen, 2005, p. 49). It could be seen as an example of identity building and community creation. In the content analysis of the sites and blogs for the 10 Democratic candidates in the 2004 US presidential election, it has been revealed that â€Å"candidates promoted interactivity online through technical means such as enabling asynchronous feedback in blog comments as well as fostering an environment of participation through textual appeals and strategy† (Trammel, 2006, p.42). Here, there in no actual participation, just networking for the purpose of vote