I have little to say about the Webmappion 2.0 paper. We very clearly persist in a new geography as we interact via a space we didn’t always have access to – the internet. Some of us still don’t have this access. But I’m not convinced the paper actually did what it set out to – specifically in the sense of discussing ramifications for society. Early discussion of terms is important, so for someone like me – new to thinking about neogeo – the paper is a helpful start. Wouldn’t end here now though. We get to decide what’s next for geo, and it seems like neogeo is in the driver’s seat.
Just want to point to authors use of complexity in Web Mapping 2.0 and neogeography. It’s not the same as complexity theory—they must’ve meant complicated at each instance.
“Essentially, Neogeography is about people using and creating their ownmaps, on their own terms and by combining elements of an existing toolset”
An encouraging quote; empowering people by assigning the agency in characterizing their human/biophysical environments is part of neogeo that makes it neo – new, and not steeped in colonialism.
Excited to force conversations of either movement or complexity in class tomorrow.