And with the investigation of ethnography is no different. Ethnography can be described as the investigation of populations. Populations with all their quirks and habits, and the research on communication in particular. Since on the internet all remains, how credible and reliable are these data? And which research method works best? Meets the classic way of cultural anthropological research? To this question on the basis of this essay, I try to find an answer concerning the web 2.
.
When you consider that everything on the internet, and there remains fixed to the end of the time, you may wonder how to filter this information for Cultural Anthropological research. What is important and what method will find the best connection? In the Handbook of Ethnography and Virtual Worlds, describes George Marcus agreements between seminal developments online and in the real world: "While there is a vestigial sense that contemporary virtual worlds must somehow be related to everyday life, in the real-time, phenomenological here to apply ethnographic methods-not so different from the classic Situation of incorporating peoples 'dream times and parallel existences to ethnographic accounts' (Marcus, 2012: XVII).
Now, the classical approach of anthropological research move to the Internet, however, that seems to me not a good idea, because it simply falls short. In the first chapter of the work "ethnography and virtual worlds" George Marcus leads with: "Virtual worlds are places of imagination .". The web 2.0 has unleashed so much interaction between individuals that it is not different can they know the individual here. What is posted on the Internet, and what is said or what is shown is often a deliberate and well-thought-out choices (and more often a choice that so-called fantasy world to feed and maintain). People think about how they want to present themselves before they present themselves, which discolors the representation of their person and incomplete failure.