Talk:Web 2.0/Archive 4

Web 2.0 Criticism of original research

I am concerned a bit about the last sentence: "Critics argue that Web 2.0 futurists are blinded by the technology and blissfully ignore the all too real control that governments and corporations can apply to communication media. There exist a probability that the Web 2.0 phenomenon may ultimately lead to a meer augmentation of current cultural information exchanges that are bound by existing political and societal strictures. Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China." It reads as a forward looking statement (prediction) but it is supported by past actions. So it is happening. Any suggestions? Richard D. Chennault (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the below issued is resolved via the last round of edits.

FayssalF claims that the entry in criticism was synthesis. Jehcochman claims it is original research. Yet neither of wikipedia editors provide specific detail as to how their claims are valid. Simply stating a thing does not make it true, it makes it a matter of opinion unless it support by verifiable fact (or at least some supporting reasoning) In the case of both editors I would think it a matter of uniformed opinion and perhaps to a certain extent me not being clear enough on my point.

And now to the point.

The criticism is specific to the language use to describe Web 2.0 by using grandiose terms that lead to hyper-inflated expectations of the object being described. THAT is not original research. One need to simply read wikinomics to get a good does of tech-utopianism rhetoric. It is NOT personal opinion that Web 2.0 is hyper-inflated. Simply read the Gartner report that details Web 2.0 heading into the trough of disillusionment. To paraphrase the report, Web 2.0 whatever it is, will not be useful for another two years.

The rhetoric of the technological sublime is neither original or new but is grounded in mass communication theory based on works of Adorno and James Carey; to name a few.

I don’t know who the “us” are the editor refers to but it seems to me absurd to proffer to represent an authority and claim to be the speaker of the ambiguous “us”.

However I’m willing to oblige ignorance on a subject matter and provide the specific reference I mentioned. A simple google search would turn up the result. Then again I’m not guilty; the editors are the accuser and at least according to western practice the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. Perhaps the editors should do their own research to validate their claims of original research, synthesis or whatever wikipedia jargon clap trap the ‘us’ they represent wishes to throw at the public. Richard D. Chennault (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Further reference regarding the rhetoric of the technology sublime is reference in this Web 2.0 article! *"Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0", Special issue of First Monday, 13(3), 2008. Really I think the 'editors' are a bit off base on removing the additional criticism. Richard D. Chennault (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

enough, already

All evidence to the contrary, at least on this talk page, the world does not exist for excruciatingly hair shredding gabfests among information technologists.

Nor, believe it or not, does the world wide web, in uppercase OR lowercase.

Similar to the way that offset printers used to argue endlessly about the best way to represent fonts in hot lead type before they got sacked in droves by Wapping, IT types need to learn that it is all about information NOT technology.

Another example, building on a reference below to terminology: Just as early car manufacturers argued endlessly about horseless carriages versus newfangled notions of an automobile, most of us - including IT types - are happy enough today to call a car, well, a car. Sheesh, if we left things to technologists, we could all choose any colour car we want, long as it's black.

Short version: guys (surely there are no women in this DSD a.k.a. dick-swinging debate) no one CARES.

Suggestion: At the risk of being branded a cheese crunching surrender simian, I refer wikipedia talkers to the French language page and, thence, to google translate for a rough idea of how simple the introductory description can be.

Synchronicity: sooner or later someone authoritative (other than timmy, natch) will make the link between the fact that web 1.0 was largely one-way while web 2.0 is largely, yup, two-way...

Gosh, fancy that! By the way, I think you Upper Case fellas will find the web largely exists in lower case.

jason brown editor avaiki news agency avaiki (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I will agree that the term "Web 2.0" is stupid. However, you suck at writing and expressing your views. Let a person who has been around the block sort stuff out. After outsourcing, people who were IT and wanted to be IT decided to switch jobs / do something else. Everyone else who stayed was pretty much a new-school idiot that bought into the media's fads of terminology and other B.S. In my opinion "Web 2.0" is an ignorant term contrived to describe the advancements of user-based applications on the Internet. So, what? Why didn't O'reilly in his idiocy say "web 2.0" is here when Macromedia was around? HMM? Anyone? I'm sure we all know that Macromedia Flash was pretty awesome and interactive!!

I think this is him, as a recognized person in information technology, to get media attention. Besides that, I understand why people are saying all of this is Web 2.0, but in my grasp of technology, I would greatly say once the "world wide web" browser was created, then we really had Web 2.0. We weren't looking at text via apple terminal boxes. There has been no great advancements in technology to the point we could consider web applications to be of extraordinary use: They have security issues.

The larger issue here is that someone thinks the Internet had advanced to a new stage. No! Remember ROMs, emulators, and piracy? Hackers knew about that stuff before common people and the media. Eventually, the media leaked it, and everyone knew about Napster. If you're calling youtube part of Web 2.0, then no! Just about anyone could have created that website. Just like how Myspace was a clone of various other websites composed into one grand website: It was simply a composition.

The only advancement that I have been impressed by as of late is Google Earth, but then again, the technology has been around. Nothing has really changed. For some odd reason, people have become sensationists and decided to post videos of themselves on the Internet. It's all about getting attention, as if people are still children. And this term, it's about O'reilly getting attention. Nothing more.

If people are saying a new "web" exists, it's because people are less paranoid about giving out their pictures, thoughts, and other stuff with their voices, faces, and real names. Wooh, that's nothing too incredibly new. Wow, it took people a decade to stop being paranoid. Wooh. So? That doesn't mean you call it Web 2.0 because a sociological change in the Internet happened! Freaking idiots. --Cyberman (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is SanguinesX, user of many web things. I totally agree with the above post ^^^. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.250.90 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"That doesn't mean you call it Web 2.0 because a sociological change in the Internet happened!"

So says Cyberman!

As an example of, as he says, freaking idiocy, his last sentence must rank right up there. Of course it does! As I was saying, we don't say "horseless carriage" any more, we say "car" or, if you're in the US, "carrrrr." Naming an "automobile" a "car" was not an argument over technology this was, yes!, a "sociological change." Similar to how "facsimile machine" became "fax" and "cell phone" became "mobile." Sorry, Cyberman, you uptight techies don't get to define things, it's "we, the people." How democratic is that!?

You can be technologically snooty as you like, but you'll be lost in the stampede of humanity trampelling towards commonly accepted terms, like "jet" instead of "jet airplane" or "aeroplane" and, lately, just plain old "plane."

Was any of this decided by technologists? No just frequently inaccurate reports from misinformed media like myself having lasting impact on what society terms everyday objects.

Web2 a tech-term? Cyberman says it himself:

Ah, nuh, duh.

"You suck" ... is sooo ... what's the word? "...convincing..."

Come in from the cold Cyberman, your time is up , )

202.36.33.100 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

oops, thought i was signed in!

avaiki (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

. . .

Web 2.0 Awards

I'm obviously totally biased since my company puts them out, but I'm wondering if the Web 2.0 Awards are worthy of being referenced on this page. We're about to launch the 2nd annual series and it seems like a good time to ask. The awards were originally hosted at http://web2.0awards.org, but are now at http://www.seomoz.org/web2.0. Thanks for your consideration.

The web needs to be be demystified as a matter urgency- too many technical cliques and technical terms- the machinery behind it needs to be "submerged" When you drive a car you dont need to know so much about the widgets in the engine. Web 3.0 will address this and hopefully Microsoft Windows will be replaced with a better operating system to better use it.... Ok four Tildes.... "82.10.205.159 10:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC) " now what????... see.... .Cliques everywhere!

Another Web 2.0 Definition

This is the working definition of Web 2.0 for INFO 344, Summer 2007 at the University of Washington's Information School. In general, the term Web 2.0 is marketing hype; however, it has become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy because the hype has catalyzed innovations in web technologies. This has been marked by a paradigm shift away from passive information consumption towards a more participatory platform. Some examples of descriptive terms associated with Web 2.0 are: user-controlled, community-oriented, dynamic content, user-friendly publishing, aesthetically-pleasing, and the ever-present "beta" versions.

Would things like wikis and P2P count as Web 2.0? I mean, wikis are all about user created content, and networking is involved. P2P involves internet sharing. So, would Wikipedia and BitTorrent be included? ForestAngel (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

web 2.0 is merely a buzzwork that means new version of web where the desktop functionalities are broght to a network.

Confused

In a SF chronicle article on a Web 2.0 party, it was stated that wikis were the antithesis of Web 2.0. Yet on here, it seems to be a part of Web 2.0 Why? -- Aussie Evil (not logged in)

Sounds like the SF chronicle is a bit confused. Artw 01:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Because nobody knows what the heck "Web 2.0" means. --Nic.stage 23:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)It would seem that because we are told that Web 2.0 will become itself by how people use it, a usable definition will always be just around the corner. What makes me uneasy about the Web 2.0 phenomena is its eerie similarity to a trend that has surfaced in different ages and times, always based on the egalitarian notion that "the people" (read "users" in this incarnation) are the rightful owners of value, morality and a way toward a bright future. From Rousseau, to Marx to John Lennon (Read his lyrics to Imagine), we have dealt over and over with the notion that mankind is potentially perfect and will reach that nirvanic state if only governments, moralities, religions and other cultural bindings can be cleared away. It would be strange if this same kind of utopian view of the world didn't pop up in something like the Web, and I believe that Web 2.0, at least in its most important characteristics, may be just that. Concepts like "emergence", "participation" and user equality all assume that all are equally honest, intelligent, moral and a number of other characteristics that define human "goodness." Trouble is, as we have already seen in the ghastly uses to which the current Web is put by an increasing number of people and groups, they aren't. Just as the policital and social stabs at egalitarianism led us into the dark, a Web 2.0 based (although technologist bridle at the suggestion) on the same precepts is likely to do the same. The most worrisome aspect of this reality is the fact that technology has made the Web so ubiquitous that anything positive it does is widely distributed, but anything negative (I started to type "evil" but thought better of it) it does is equally so. My own suggestion is that we let the technology of the Web evolve at its own, increasing pace, but follow the social paths down which it seems to be leading with great care and a clear-eyed acceptance that we have been here before.(Da1sydad 21:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

I beleive you'll find it's a "supposed second generation of Internet-based services—such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies—that emphasize online collaboration and sharing among users." Artw 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

While there is much confusion about and within Web 2.0, I didn't think wikis would be one of them. Uberveritas 06:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it's the age of the internet and every bozo can come up with new catch phrase, or buzz word, to push his agenda or supposedly innovate whilst replicating/immitating, and that happens 24/7, and what with the apparent lack of any social life beyond the computer screen for a lot of idle people in the west, these phrases (these memes to use another idiotic rehash of an old idea) catch on and proliferate with no apparent use or merit, other than making the originators self important and creating more jargon that we have to plough about in order to get to something valueable. (hence the time honoured journals, or even the internet journals we used to keep on our websites have become blogs all of a sudden, hence web 2.0 (which has got me waisting my time thinking all of a sudden some new technology has emerged...)) My advice would be to ignore such nonsense, or at least take everything with a huge grain of salt. 195.134.69.213 04:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that Web 2.0 is, in fact, an ice-cream topping. --Surturz 07:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

<offtopic> That is by far the best response to a flame-bait that I've seen yet. </offtopic> As for it being a buzzword, well - yes. It is a buzzword. And I think Berners-Lee's comment about questioning the meaningful usability of the term is valid. In preparing an OpenCourseWare course on the subject of Web 2.0 I've done some reading and the term seems to be being used to describe several different things (for example Web-As-Platform as well as increasingly esthetically pleasing UI). According to O'Reilly, though, the ideas under or close to being under the 2.0 umbrella seem to revolve around a way of thinking. Bulletin Board Systems are just about as old as the Internet (not WWW) itself, and seem IMHO to embody the service-based community-centered ideology of what 2.0 seems to be about. I might suggest that it's not simply a shift in thinking or a new business development, but rather a renaissance or return to the roots of the Internet. But 2.0 seems to be more than that. It is certainly enabled by developments like the increase in prevalence of high-speed connections and by technologies like AJAX, Flex, $ilverlight, etc. But while the original pre-WWW Internet was strongly community and collaboration flavored, it didn't have the web-as-platform element that seems to be at the core of Web 2.0. Also, business seems to be both affected by and effecting change and development in the web and specifically in the cloud that is Web 2.0 and the business world didn't embrace the web until well into the "Web 1.0" era.

Origin of term Web 2.0?

This article, apparently from July 1999, makes reference to the phrase Web 2.0 far in advance of O'Reilly Media's use of it in 2004.

I'm getting redirected - is the link correct? Artw 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct link. 213.114.152.74 17:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is not found! who can give a correct link? Sammuel.cen 2009

Maybe there are some other internerds of sufficient maturity out there to remember- wasn't "Web 2.0" a project goal some time ago? As in, weren't several groups trying to develop technologies with which to build an internet successor which would be deemed "Web 2.0" (or Internet 2.0 perhaps)? I seem to remember something about this far before 1999.gspawn 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[/rant follows, you may wish to disregard] The whole notion of a "web2.0" really is a made-up business term, and has no real meaning in the world. User reviews for products are a RE-emergence of BB/news servers where users formally could ONLY discuss products in that way, so Amazon is going back in time instead of forward. See their recent outright adoption of forum display on product pages for more confirmation. MySpace hasn't really evolved anything, either- aside from sheer pop penetration and the fact that we're using MP3 instead of MIDI, what really seperates MySpace from the GeoCities/Freewebs boom where every teen who wanted to be popular had a badly formatted homepage back in the day?gspawn 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Web vs web

I have reverted an over-the-board edit [1] which changes all lowercase "website", "web application", "semantic web" and others into uppercase. The fact that the article Website is not titled Web site shows that at least there hasn't been consensus on Wikipedia whether we should use the uppercase or lowercase form, much less so for derived terms such as "web application". Some changes appear to be inappropriate -- "an internet" clearly indicates any Internet-like structure and not the Internet. Please discuss any further changes here first. --John Seward 16:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I'd like to appologize for changing "an internet" to "an Internet," as it simply slipped while I was editing. Thank you for catching that.

Now, for the discussion of the capitalization of Web. I think I explained it fairly well in my edit discreption, but I will try to explain it again. The World Wide Web is a name. Web is simply a shortened version of this name, when you are referring to the WWW. Thus, like all proper names, it is capitalized. Similarly, when use the name in conjuction with something that is connected to the Web, it also capitalized (e.g. Web site, Web server, Web page, or simply the Web). All of these relate to the World Wide Web, which is a name and is always capitalized. Furthermore, thank you for bringing up Web site, as within the article it explains the capitalization in the sectiona titled "Spelling":

Although "website" is commonly used, the Associated Press Stylebook, Reuters, Microsoft, academia, and dictionaries such as Oxford and Merriam-Webster use the two-word, capitalised spelling "Web site".

Furthermore, this was discussed on in the discussion page:

The use of "website" by "newspapers and other media" is utterly incorrect. Most newspapers and other media use "Web site". AP Style, as well as several other authorities, forbid "website". The only mainstream media that uses "website" that comes to mind immediately is WIRED Magazine, which made the controversial change relatively recently.

The internationally recognized official Web standards are established and published by the World Wide Web Consortium or W3C and can be found at the site [www.w3.org]. It must be acknowledged that the standard (i.e correct) is always a capitalized W whenever referring to the World Wide Web in any form, including: Web, Web site, Web page, Web server, etc.

~ UBeR 00:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to the use of Web site over website by itself, though I have doubt whether this preference has already gained consensus in Wikipedia as the website article itself is spelt in one word - if Web site is the correct title, why not rename it? Remember also Wikipedia is descriptive.

Moreover, a case can be made that some derived terms, eg weblog and webapp, should be written in lowercase because these terms originate from the technical community where lowercase, one-word representation of terms prevails. --John Seward 17:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I will suggest, then, that the title of Website be changed Web site based on this disucssion. As for Web log (blog) and Web application (webapp), they are both capitalized, when using the word Web (hence blog is not capitalized) in the sense it's connected to the World Wide Web. Of course, not all are connected to the WWW. ~ UBeR 18:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess you'd better go through the normal process on the website article in order to get a consensus. --John Seward 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Neologism?

Wouldn't it be appropriate to classify "web 2.0" as a neologism? The term seems to fit the mold: ..words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. If anyone cares to discuss it, then we could decide to put it in the article. --Nic.stage 22:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, it would qualify as a neologism. Uberveritas 06:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It absolutely is a neologism (it's what, 2 years old?) That doesn't make it bad, necessarily, but it seems to be a textbook case! - JustinWick 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutely a neologism. Note that's not the same as failing WP:NEO, just in case anyone is getting any funny ideas. Artw 02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Beachy 02:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC) -- Are you sure this isn't a WP:NEO issue? To quote:

There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

• The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
• The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

Yes I am absolutely sure it is not a WP:NEO issue. Give it up. Artw 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

VOTE: WP:NEO Violation?

Contending that this article should be pared down to remove original research, such that it reflects the O'Reilly definition and not the various other abuses of the term

• violation - the article is full of original research and should instead reflect the fact that "Web 2.0" is a buzzword defined once and once only by O'Reilly. --Beachy 12:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we've gone as far down that path as we can without reflecting that other people have used and adapted the term. Feel free to make some more specific suggestions if you feel that's not the case. Also I think you assertion that WP:NEO is not being met by the article is rather ridiculous given the prevelence of the term - no matter how silly you or I think it is. 16:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • To quote WP:NEO : "it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." You've had your vote ArtW. Now let the other editors decide. --Beachy 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I've "had my vote"? Where is the formal voting process for a " VOTE: WP:NEO Violation?" described exactly? Is this a straight up or don vote? What exactly are we voting for? carte blanche for you to edit the article however you please? I don't really think that;s how wikipedia works. Artw 17:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Also to quote the full sentence "If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. " - Is your contention that Web 2.0 is not verifiable? If so maybe you should spefiy where you think extra references are required. Artw 17:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't believe in God, in the same way that I don't believe there is a rubber duck orbiting the moon. I don't have to "verify" this stance, because there is simply no need to believe in these things in the first place. The near-religious hysteria surrounding the "second coming" of The Web is what some people are defending here in this article. And you're asking me to somehow "verify" the non-existence of this "phenomenon" before I cleanse this article of non-verified statements? How does one "verify" the non-existence of such ridiculous concepts, anyway, when there is no definition, let alone no way to enumerate, test, identify or prove their existence in the first place. If you, like the marketing suits and the excitable pseudo-techy teenage evangelists, feel the need to prove the existence of "Web 2.0" as a real-life technical phenomenon then by all means write about it in your blogs. Such content, however, does not belong in Wikipedia. We can all verify that Tim O'Reilly came up with some definition for his term "Web 2.0" THIS, and nothing else, is what belongs on the Wikipedia. To write anything else is an act of shameful zealotry, let alone a breach of Wikipedia principles --Beachy 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I've lost track. I get that you don;t think that anything other than Tim O'Reillys definition of Web 2.0 should be described here (something you've argued for before and I would argue against), but how in the hell is this anything to do with WP:NEO? Artw 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Please, ArtW, go and read WP:NEO. It's not a long article and it won't take you long. Then, if you have anything more to contribute to the debate, other than flamebait, please reply --Beachy 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
              • So, what do you want? If you think this article should be deleted because it is a neologism, feel free to submit it to AfD. Otherwise, I don't see any point in continuing this argument, or "vote" as you put it. --John Seward 16:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm familiar with WP:NEO, and I'm still confused by your use of it - WP:V and WP:OR would seem more appropriate to your argument. WP:NEO is more about whether it is appropriate to include an article in wikipedia at all. Artw 18:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment - some parts of the article are woefully short on citations, there are some weasel words (e.g. attributions to 'commentators', 'proponents' etc) and there's some unnecessary hyperbole (like 'resurgence of excitement', 'capabilities that go beyond', 'rich' and 'interactive'). As a tertiary source, what we have to reflect is that what we have here is a term: It may have some ancient history, with earliest usages going back years some claim, then there was the O'Reilly conference, and since then there have been a great many occurrences in print and on the web with some meaning but no clear consensus. Each of these phases of the term's life need separating and describing with reference to established and reliable secondary sources. Obviously in the process we should debunk any idea that the term has a technical, defined or standards-based meaning, like, for example 'HTML 4.1' and 'CSS 2.1' have. --Nigelj 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I aggree. I think this is an important subject for Wikipedia to cover, but we really need to get sources for everything. Also, I think sometimes weasel words are necessary in a situation like this (where viewpoint seems to define the reality of the situation, as the term means different things to different people), but the fact that Web 2.0 is difficult for most people to understand (due to its hydra-like nature) makes it an article of critical importance. Wikipedia has flexibilities and agilities far greater than that of traditional enyclopaedias, and it seems to me that we should not squander this by deleting or neutering this article. A large degree of the article's usefulness is *not* the "original" intention of the term, but rather the many things it has come to mean. The WP:NEO policies are important, but I think Web 2.0 has been used long enough and by enough credible sources to consider noteworthy and important for exploration purposes. - JustinWick 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Should wikipedia articles be used for "exploration" purposes? I thought they were meant to reflect the current factual state of affairs. If "viewpoint seems to define the reality of the situation" then maybe that situation isn't so real after all? I'm not suggesting we remove the article - I'm just suggesting we use it to state the official O'Reilly definition and not add fuel to the viral fire of abuse and manipulation that the term has seen in certain parts of the tech community. Technical terms are not meant to stir the imagination. You guys are confusing such things with MARKETING terms. At the risk of silencing your inner child, please consider the impact of turning wikipedia into an "imaginative journey" rather than a reference resource. --Beachy 14:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Should wikipedia articles be used for exploration purposes?" I would say no. Is this article being used for exploration purposes? Again I would say no. The purpose of the article should not be to add fuel to "the viral fire of abuse and manipulation that the term has seen in certain parts of the tech community", but neither should it be to suppress it, what we wnat to be doing is describing it. Artw 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Web-based Communities Section

Regarding the "Web-based communities" section under "Innovations associated with "Web 2.0"", is this something the group is actively working on updating? I see quite a few "citations needed" notations, and I think there is more than can be done to improve this section. Uberveritas 07:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Time's usage

Time magazine contributed Web 2.0 to existence of the Person of the Year for 2006 (you). Read about it here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/16/time.you.tm/index.html

The introduction

The introduction is getting very long and sprawling. I've re-arrnaged it a little so that it flows better and introduced some subheadings but it still needs more work. In particular I think we need to move some of the material out of the introduction and into other sections, or new sections where appropraite. Where redundancy exists between the introduction and another section we should take a look at removing the redundant portions. Artw 21:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Notable experts, in particular Tim Berners-Lee, see the term as a needless and poorly-defined buzzword"

I can't find any record of Tim Berners Lee actually saying this, so I've removed this sentence for now.

It seems to be a reference to this to Tim Berners Lee article linked to in the Criticla section, but that phrase is not used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artw (talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

The correct link [[2]] added by Sammuel.cen —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC).

"Web 1.0" Vs Web 2.0

The following text was removed from the article on 19:59, 8 January 2007:

Proponents of the Web 2.0 concept say that it differs from early Web development (retrospectively labeled "Web 1.0") in that it moves away from static web-sites, the use of search engines, and surfing from one website to the next, towards a more dynamic and interactive World Wide Web. Others argue that later developments have not actually superseded the original and fundamental concepts of the WWW.

...for some reason the edit comment calls it a reversion, though the text had actually been in the article for a while. It got moved in the article recently which may have caused some confusion.

TBH losing this paragraph was no great loss, since it's unsourced and a bit vague, but I think we should add a section regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship) between the so-called "Web 1.0" and Wbe2.0 concepts.

If we an get a cite for the following it should probably go in the new section:

The concept of Web-as-participation-platform captures many of these characteristics. Bart Decrem, founder and former CEO of Flock calls Web 2.0 the "participatory Web", and regards Web-as-information-source as Web 1.0.

I particularly like this as it's tied to a particular person, rather than a vague "experts" or "some people" or "the community".

As should this claim from the introduction, or at least something of a similar nature that's less wishy-washy and tied to a particular source:

Access to consumer-generated content facilitated by Web 2.0 brings the web closer to Tim Berners-Lee's original concept of the web as a democratic, personal, and DIY medium of communications.

And that Tim Berners Lee quote that people keep trying to introduce to the lead text should probably go in there as a counter argument.

Thoughts? Artw 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the term '"Web 1.0"' (even with the quotes) as it is one of those terms that people coin in response to "Web 2.0" as if there really exists a well-defined transcendence from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 to even sillier terms such as Web 2.5 and Web 3.0. We should know better than this. Other than this, I like the concept. Perhaps just call it "Comparison with the old paradigm".

As for the quote, perhaps this is the source: [3]: --John Seward 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that there's some concern that TBLs views regarding "Web 2.0" and it's relation to "Web 1.0" have become such a concern lately possibly we should concider reviving this section and extensively quoting him here. Artw 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Web-based communities

The following text was removed from the Innovations associated with "Web 2.0" section on 23:06, 6 January 2007:

Web-based communities

Some web-sites that potentially sit under the Web 2.0 umbrella have built new online social networks amongst the general public. Some of these sites run social software where people work together. Other sites reproduce several individuals' RSS feeds on one page.

The syndication and messaging capabilities of Web 2.0 have fostered, to a greater or lesser degree, a tightly-woven social fabric among individuals. Arguably, the nature of online communities has changed in recent months and years. The meaning of these inferred changes, however, has pundits divided. Basically, ideological lines run thusly: Web 2.0 either empowers the individual and provides an outlet for the "voice of the voiceless"; or it elevates the amateur to the detriment of professionalism, expertise and clarity.

It's not great writing, makes a bunch of unsourced claims and seems to be talking about blogs and even webtops more than online communities. However there is a significant community aspect to Web 2.0 and if were going to have an Innovations associated with "Web 2.0" section we should put in a few, hopefully better written, paragraphs to reflect that. Artw 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge content from World live web

World live web had been tagged for merge to this article so I've added the mirror tag to the top of the page to facilitate discussion. One user has already agreed to the merge at Talk:World live web. Madmedea 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding one meaningless term to another? Great - a MASHUP! And maybe if we all start blathering on about it, it could be a FOLKSONOMY! --Beachy 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Smacking people in the face was invented by God circa 15 billion years ago just for the occurance where people make up stupid internet terms, like this one. I'd suggest that the possibility of divine (or not so divine) judgement is a good enough reason to leave that term alone - JustinWick 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly Radar document

Have you guys seen http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/web2report/chapter/web20_report_excerpt.pdf ? Now that seems to me to be a quotable and citable source for this article. The full version is a little expensive for my pocket, unfortunately. --Nigelj 20:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. I'm still a little concerned tht the article is a bit O'Reilly heavy. Artw 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that WP:NEO says, "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." [original emphasis]. --Nigelj 22:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Amusing Web 2.0 Mockery Sites

• How to Fake a Web 2.0 Logo

Web 2.0 is a Web phenomenon

Artw reverted my edit today saying "no[t] everything under the Web 2.0 umbrella works over the web (though it is true that most of it uses HTTP)". I propose that - and the clue is in the name - Web 2.0 is a phenomenon of the World Wide Web. The Web is an interconnected set of 'resources', connected by hyperlinks. These resources have always included documents, images, multimedia and a great many kinds of other software applications, features and facilities. Web 2.0 clearly fits inside this WWW concept, not outside of it.

The current opening paragraph says that Web 2.0 is a "second generation of Internet-based services". I propose that this is wrong - it should read that it is a "second generation of Web-based services", or something like that that references the existing WWW. Web 2.0 involves no new techniques in packet-switching, in data routing, in fibre-optic cabling or any other internetworking technology. To claim that it does either shows a lack of grasp of the difference between two concepts, or it represents a level of hype that really can't be sustained by the rest of the material in this article. --Nigelj 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0 puts quite a lot of emphasis on web services and RSS, both of which run over HTTP but do not necessarily have to be consumed over the web, so I'd say the broader "internet" is more appropriate.

Also, from the article mentions a number of non-web apps that consume web 2.0 services:

"Level 1 applications, also available offline but which gain features online. O'Reilly pointed to Writely (since 10 October 2006: Google Docs & Spreadsheets, offering group-editing capability online) and iTunes (because of its music-store portion)."

--Artw 23:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, hasn't anyone told you guys..? Web 2.0 isn't a technical term.. You'll be arguing Web/Internet all day and night because there is actually NO CONCRETE TECHNICAL DEFINITION of the term itself. --Beachy 01:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, I could have sworn that only recently you were arguing that the O'Reilly definition of Web 2.0, which I just quoted, was the one true definition of Web 2.0, which would be rather contradictory to the statement you just made. If I was going to rather uncharitable I'd conclude that on any particular day you just pick whatever position seems like it will be most disruptive and argue for it passionatly, with the intent of being a pain in the ass. Artw 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly is a marketer. If "Web 2.0" had come out of the W3C then it would be a technical term and you could argue Internet/Web semantics. The O'Reilly definition still does NOT make this a technical term. --Beachy 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Beachy, I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Artw's observation. No one here is saying that Web 2.0 is a technical term - it seems that it is only you who fall into this. --John Seward 13:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys quickly got off the subject. What I'm saying is that a term that describes new ways of addressing network hosts, new ways of routing packets of data between networks, or new low-level client-server protocols like IMAP, FTP, file-sharing - that would be to do with a second-generation internet. Web 2.0 describes types of new material that people exchange over HTTP (tags, folksonomies etc), new ways to read and update databases over HTTP (blogging, RSS feeds etc), new ways to update the data in a browser over HTTP (like Ajax), new pieces of text to exchange over HTTP (like xml, web services, REST).... These are all extensions to the concept of the WWW, not extensions to the underlying internet.

Discussing whether things are "consumed over the web" or not doesn't fill me with confidence that you are clear what the difference is. The web is an abstract concept, not a alternative set of wiring. Maybe have a read of the appropriate two articles (WWW and Internet). --Nigelj 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So... you're taking Internet to mean the actual physical hardware? Cos there are plentry of "abstract concepts" that run over the internet (email, newsgroups, etc...) that are not the web.

I'm a bit confused as to what point your're trying to make here Artw 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I sort of see your point looking at the internet article, but i'm not sure. rewording is appropriate. De-linkng may be. Artw 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got it! The internet is the physical hardware, plus a few software layers that make it work, like IP and TCP. Then there are lots of applications that run on top, like email, security cameras, the WWW. Web 2.0 is a set of changes happening to the World Web Web application - "the Web". It does not change the way email or file sharing works. It also does not refer to any change in the actual internet - unlike IPv6, packet-filtering firewalls and Quality of service mechanisms, those are changes to the internet. The article should NOT say that Web 2.0 is any kind of second-generation internet. --Nigelj 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I;m going to find an alternate wording. Chnaging it to "Web" doesn't work, for the reasons mentioned above. Artw 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You could make the tenuous argument that RSS is outside the realms of the World Wide Web and hence "Web 2.0" is an Internet "technology." The truth, as technologists here can see, is that "Web 2.0" is simply an arbitrary hotch-potch collection of existing Web technologies. --Beachy 10:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My quick opinion (I'll look in more detail later) is that interfaces are web-based, but the interaction between the browser and the back-end is more generically internet based. For example, data being transferred may not be just web pages, but any type of data. Stephen B Streater 10:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit more on this: Java applets can access the internet through any port - ie not just port 80. Web 2.0 applications with Java applet front ends using non-web ports for non-web data are therefore an internet phenomenon. I haven't had time to read all the stuff above yet, but I'll do this later. Stephen B Streater 11:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I simply don't see ther possibility for confusion here - does "internet based" or "internet mediated" REALLY imply aa change to the hardware of the internet to you guys? You you say it was contentious to sya that email was "internet based"? And as I've said before since the article covers some things not all web-based having "web-based" in the opening paragraph is confusing and contradictory. If we are really dead set against "internet" I think we need to formulate a new opening paragraph that doesn;t use "web based" either, which will be a bit tricky. We'll either need to avoid the issue altogether or find another synonym for "things that run on the internet".

My personal feeling is that it was fine beforew and Beachy is just pushing the issue to be a dick. Artw 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you're a little frustrated by the opinions of more technically-minded editors, but there's no need for playground name-calling --Beachy 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A few points have been raised: The web is not some technical thing about Port 80, otherwise SSL port 443 and other experimental ports would put lots off things "off" the web. It is a worldwide, abstract web of documents, multimedia and other resources linked by their URLs, XLinks and hyperlinks. It's not even just about http, as you could follow a href to an ftp URL, download a document that has an XLink to another resource and follow that: that would all be part of the worldwide web, I'd say. An RSS document is usually little more than a bunch of http web resource URLs and hyperlinks in an XML document, delivered by http - you can't get much more 'web'. Java applets may not get many votes round here as an example of Web 2.0, but they are web resources themselves - wherever they may source their data, they make it available on a web page. If we change the discussion to the same Java code running in a Java desktop application, no-one would say it's still Web 2.0 - it's the fact that it's delivered as part of the web that makes it Web 2.0, if at all. This is not personal, Artw, so don't interlace personal attacks, please. --Nigelj 19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much a personal attack as an observation that Beachy appears to delight in being deliberatly disruptive when it comes to this article. Artw 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's risky to try and ascribe motives to other editors - people are complex and we only see a small window on each other. OTOH, I can point to at least one reliable source which implies at least one Java applet is Web 2.0. Stephen B Streater 09:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nigel, how, then, do you reconcile your definition of the "web" with non-web applications like iTunes? Tim O'Reilly classify it as an Web 2.0 application expressly here. I'll be alright with the word "web" in the lead if we can have a satisfactory answer here. --John Seward 14:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

VOTE: Mentioning Tim Berners-Lee's Opinion in Lead Paragraph

I believe the lead paragraph should include the following quote from Tim Berners Lee, which is of key importance since Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web and directs the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) which drives and standardises new Web technology:

"Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon"

Please vote here to include or omit the quote. --Beachy 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Include - it may be hard to find someone who knows what Web 2.0 is, but we can be sure that TB-L has a clue what Web 1.0 was meant to be! --Nigelj 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Include - TBL is the reference on the Web, not a media mogul peddling "technology" books! --Beachy 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC
• Omit - it contributes nothing to this article. It might make sense farther down, but not right at the start where the article should focus on characterizing what active leaders and shapers think Web 2.0 is. AmbientArchitecture 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • TBL is not active? And not a leader? ..no wonder you remained anonymous with an embarrasingly incorrect comment like that! --Beachy 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Getting close to WP:DICK again there. Artw 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Omit - That is simply not the right place for it. Also WTF with the voting thing again? Artw 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I know you delight in reverting what you personally don't agree with, but there are plenty of editors out there who prefer a bit of old-fashioned democracy --Beachy 23:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Whatever. This is simply not an instance in which "voting" is appropriate or binding Artw 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment also it might be a bit of a misrepresntation of TBL to portray him as "anti-Web 2.0". He has his quibbles with his term (as do I, for what it's worth) but he's been very positive about almost everything that is pushed as Web 2.0.. As sucvh I think the selective quote is a distortion. Artw 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • He might have been positive about a web site or a technology - but does that really mean you can arbitrarily slap the "Web 2.0" label on that site/technology and then claim TBL is "positive" about "Web 2.0"? Come off it! --Beachy 23:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's that quote you are so fond of in full:

Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.

And in fact, you know, this Web 2.0, quote, it means using the standards which have been produced by all these people working on Web 1.0. It means using the document object model, it means for HTML and SVG and so on, it's using HTTP, so it's building stuff using the Web standards, plus Java script of course.

So Web 2.0 for some people it means moving some of the thinking client side so making it more immediate, but the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be as a collaborative space where people can interact.

Now, I really like the idea of people building things in hypertext, the sort of a common hypertext space to explain what the common understanding is and thus capturing all the ideas which led to a given position. I think that's really important. And I think that blogs and wikis are two things which are fun, I think they've taken off partly because they do a lot of the management of the navigation for you and allow you to add content yourself." [4]

Artw 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for including that, ArtW - as we can see, his words in full are summarised by the line that we're voting on --Beachy 10:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The selective quoting is overly negative. I'd much rather see a fuller expansion on his views later in the article. The lead should be a simple, concise explanation of what the term means, which is expanded on later. TBH I'm not super happy about the quote that's currently there.Artw 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Include this authoritative and salutary reminder up-front that we have to deal with jargon here — whether or not the term "Web 2.0" has any substance, it remains jargon-tainted. -- Pedant17 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Include: my Uncle used to work with TBL in CERN. It's good to get away from the hype from time to time to preserve balance. Stephen B Streater 09:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the lead paragraph??? Artw

Better later on I think - when the concept is being discussed. Some reference to the controversial nature should be made in the intro, but specific third party quotes could have undue weight here. Stephen B Streater 08:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if we're going to include Tim O'Reilly's quote then we need to balance this. The article is currently advocating "Web 2.0" as a useful concept. Many believe that it's not, and TBL is the authoritative voice here. --Beachy 09:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we refer to the fact of scepticism and put TBL's quote and source in a reference? Stephen B Streater 10:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Although important for the Web as a whole, TBL is peripheral to Web 2.0 compared with O'Reilly. Stephen B Streater 10:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Peripheral? How is the inventor of the Web and lead Web Standards director "peripheral" to a proposed "Web 2.0." Are you kidding? --Beachy 00:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Omit. We can't have it both way: if we are to believe that Web 2.0 is a marketing term at large that doesn't inherit directly from Web 1.0, then only Tim O'Reilly, who coined the phrase, shall have sufficient authority on this topic to be quoted in the lead, and Tim Berners-Lee's quote is as authoritative as any other expert in this field (that is to say, not much). Besides, that quote itself doesn't say much; many terms are "of course a jargon" and we don't need to remind every reader of this in every "jargon" article. --John Seward 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Give me an example of an article on a word which is pure technical jargon (ie. no real definition). I think you'll struggle to find one. With "Web 2.0" we're dealing with a freak phenomenon. O'Reilly wants it to be real but most of the tech community knows it doesn't have any technical basis. We need the TBL quote to dispell the impression that this is a well-defined and ratified term. TBL is one of the few technicians that is qualified to make a statement like this, and the lead paragraph is where it belongs, IMO --Beachy 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, that "Web 2.0" isn't really version 2 of anything, especially not the word wide web or the internet, and there isn't really such a thing as a "Web 1.0" is an entirely valid point and probably one that should address in it's opening paragraphs. Perhaps a simple statement to that effect - in a neutral tone - would be a good idea, rather than messing about with the quote? Artw 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. That would be the right thing to do. --John Seward 16:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you guys can come up with something that is more to-the-point and authoritative than the quote then I would welcome it. I think it'll be tough to find anything better than the words of TBL though. --Beachy 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also there is a Youtube video on this. Go to www.youtube.com and type in Web 2.0

The vote is so far in favour of including the quote, and nothing more authoritative has been offered up, so the quote's back in - at least for the time being --Beachy 00:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Except "votes" don't really mater, what fits and what makes sense matter. And having the quote above the fold does neither. Artw 00:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What kind of regime states "votes don't matter"? The majority of us think that the quote DOES fit in... and it certainly makes sense - you can't deny that. --Beachy 00:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, it's a discussion where we attempt to acheive consensus and a reasonable outcome. That doesn;t change because you;ve slpped the word "vote" in a heading anf then declared yourself victor after an arbitary mount of time, andy more than it would be a trial if i slapped the word "Trial" in a heading and then declared you guilty. Artw 02:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the selective use of TBL quoptes, someone reacently used one to argue that Web 3.0 existed as a well defined concept. Should we include that quote above the fold as well? Artw 02:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Votes happen all the time on wikipedia, and rightfully so. You're part of a vocal minority here, and you don't like it. Don't make this personal. Don't take it out on other editors. --Beachy 13:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please point me at where the procedure for a Vote To Include A Quote Above The Fold is described in the Wikipedia guidelines. Artw 15:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also making unfounded claims of vandalism in the edit history is very poor form. Artw 15:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is a vote, a "request for comments" or whatever, you would be equally wrong to go against the majority of editor opinion in your edit/reversion. In this discussion you have constantly taken a position contrary to the opinions of other long-time editors. I'd hate to see you suffer a block due to violation of 3RRR but if that's what it takes then so be it. --Beachy 17:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion and wikipedia is not a democracy. I see no consensus here, and furthermore this really isn't an appropriate topic for a straw poll, and you seem to have shown no interest in the actual discussion that hads unfolded. I will be removing your quote. If you disagree please take this to arbitration. If you simply remove the quote I will request a block on you under WP:3RR. Artw 18:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has occured above, during the vote (have you not read this?), and the concensus is that the quote should be included. You can hardly accuse me of "showing no interest" here - please re-read the comments above. Since you have now violated WP:3RR, and seeing as you're not willing to respect the opinions of the majority, you will be reported. --Beachy 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How, exactly, have I violated 3RR? Check the history. And what 3RR actually means. You might want at to be a little more careful throwing terms like 3RR and "Vandalism" around. Artw 20:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Beachy, please be more careful about accusing people of vandalism. It's not helpful. — Aldaron • T/C 21:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cute. He actually did put a post about me on the 3RR noticeboard, which was rejected, primarily because admins can count better than him. I am now very close to requesting a block or ban of him for simple disruptiveness. Artw 21:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy your little moment ArtW --Beachy 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I enjoy being subject to shabby bad faith attacks? Unless that was a genuine mistake, in which case I suppose an apology would be too much to ask for? Artw 00:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bad faith attack. You've reverted three times against the concensus in a single day. I made a mistake, since it turns out the 3RR rule requires four reversions in 24 hours, rather than three. --Beachy 18:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0

Watchers of thsi page may be interested in the [| deletion review for the Web 3.0 page], which may end up being unsalted and reinstated. Artw 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Looks like Web 3.0 is back. My take on it is that the artivle is basically unsavable and should be deleted again, hopefully enough work will be pout into it to prove me wrong. Artw 19:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything that helps make a mockery of Web 2.0 is fine by me. Hopefully the same reasons for culling all the rubbish about Web 3.0 will also apply to Web 2.0. --Beachy 00:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Frontiers-man in web2.0

In these days, web2.0 has come. Who do you think frontiersman of web2.0?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emckk (talk • contribs) 13:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

You're undoubtedly a frontiers-man yourself! --Beachy 00:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

MySpace per se is not Web 2.0

Web 2.0 mashups are integrated into the site but that does not itself make MySpace a Web 2.0 site. -- Stantonschool32 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. MySpace is not a Web 2.0 site because "Web 2.0" does NOT F**KING EXIST. When will you people learn to stop arguing semantics over a non-phenomenon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beachy (talk • contribs) 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Web 2.0 graphs, charts and the effect it is/will have on business

Hi,

I'm doing an essay on web 2.0 for my computing solutions degree and I thought I'd try using a web 2.0 site to help me along the way. I hadn't heard of the term until my boss at work suggested to me that I might like to use it as my topic after my tutor suggested we all write something I.T related(vague I know!). Anyway I have been searching the internet for graphs incorporating web 2.0 and I can't find much. What I'm looking for is things like a line graphs to show the increase of blogging over the last few years, something along those lines anyway.

I also need to write a little on how web 2.0 is and will effect businesses in the future if anyone can give me some hints and tips on that, that would be great :) if you could you want to email me that would be fantastic: sjs07@hotmail.co.uk thank you

Sjs07 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Sara

Editors persistently removing portions of the lead paragraph

The lead paragraph needs an authoritative sentence (at the very least) which represents the large portion of the development community that believes "Web 2.0" is merely jargon with little meaning. Tim Berners-Lee is the obvious authority here, having invented the Web and being the director of the W3C (web standards consortium).

Unfortunately it seems one or two editors are determined to remove any critical reference from this introduction. In order that this article is balanced we need to address the concerns of well-respected and prolific sources who believe that "Web 2.0" is just marketing hype. The lead paragraph needs to set the balance of the article, rather than focussing on the opinion that "Web 2.0" is an agreed, ratified phenomenon. The worst situation would be for people to read the article thinking that "Web 2.0" was a technical standard.

Please voice your opinion on this and please do not be afraid to edit the page as you see fit - it is always unfortunate when just a few determined editors are left to edit-war with each other when there is an obvious and recorded consensus of opinion. --Beachy 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The version of this line that Beachy has settled on is way too negative, and should not be left in the article. I've edited it down to something a little mpre neutral, but I'm not really sure this is the place in the article for this, given the chnages that have been made to the rest of the intro.

As for the possibilty of someone reading the current version of the intro and coming to the conclusion that Web 2.0 is some kind of technical standard - sorry, I just don't beleive that exists, or that the TBL quote would be the best way to deal with it if it was. Artw 16:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The single word "Jargon" does not express his views, it merely sounds a bit derogatory. That in itself is reason enough for excising it.

As for Web 2.0 being meaningless and undefined - 1) he doesn't quite say that, and 2) If we're going with the O'Reilly definition then it has a quite well defined meaning.

The use of the quote in ther heading also runs into problems under the undue weight and, to a lesser extent the giving "equal validity" sections of NPOV.

I should also point out that an appeal to authority is a poor form or argument, especially if the interpretation of that authority is questionable, and that your claim to "concensus" is shakey to non-existant - see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, the verdict on your 3RR attempt and for that matter re-read the discussion itself - more people end up "against" than "for".

Perhaps you could consider some other way to address your concerns about the article other than this particular quote, or should concider laying out your concerns more fully so other editors can try and address them - as far as i can see the major concern you've expressed has already been met. Artw 19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not about "negativity," and in any case the wikipedia is not designed to be a happy-go-lucky, rose-tinted, cheery view on the world - it's designed to be _representative_ of the current state of affairs. I'd understand your qualms if I was quoting my own opinion on "Web 2.0," which counts for nothing here. However, you can't censor the opinion of a respected industry figure just because you personally don't like his tone. To remove or "neuter" the TBL quote is to unbalance the lead paragraph. And what is your rationale for removing the information that backs up TBL's authority on this subject matter? This is crucial here. --Beachy 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

TBLI is important, but this article is not about TBL. Also I'm not sure that misrepresenting his views is the best way to serve him, and your selective quoting is far more about your views than TBLs. Artw 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Until you've spoken to TBL about this you cannot claim that I am misrepresenting his views. He made it very clear that he thinks "Web 2.0" is just jargon. Those were his exact words. When he refered to it later in the article he calls it "Web 2.0, quote." I could reel off more of what TBL said about Web 2.0, all of which would represent the same opinion. The only reason for not quoting more, is because the single-line quote summarises his points succinctly and this is, after all, the lead paragraph --Beachy 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The single word "Jargon" does not express his views, it merely sounds a bit derogatory. That in itself is reason enough for excising it. Artw 16:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

TBL: "I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon" Sorry if you're a little personally affected by TBL's tone, but you shouldn't let that get in the way of your duty as an NPOV editor here --Beachy 10:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Web 2.0 being meaningless and undefined - 1) he doesn't quite say that, and 2) If we're going with the O'Reilly definition then it has a quite well defined meaning. Artw 16:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed TBL said "Web 2.0" was "meaningless" or "undefined." You are using a straw man attack here, and any editor who can see the article edit history will see that. --Beachy 10:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of the quote in ther heading also runs into problems under the undue weight and, to a lesser extent the giving "equal validity" sections of NPOV. Artw 16:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One line of criticism about Web 2.0. ONE LINE. You think that's too much? Too derogatory? Get real! --Beachy 10:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that an appeal to authority is a poor form or argument, especially if the interpretation of that authority is questionable, and that your claim to "concensus" is shakey to non-existant - see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, the verdict on your 3RR attempt and for that matter re-read the discussion itself - more people end up "against" than "for". Artw 16:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not appealing to authority. I'm merely reflecting the concensus of my editor peers on this very page. --Beachy 10:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could consider some other way to address your concerns about the article other than this particular quote, or should concider laying out your concerns more fully so other editors can try and address them - as far as i can see the major concern you've expressed has already been met. Artw 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the current state is fair - is there agreement on that? I like the compromise!

Alex Jackl 14:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy with things, although the "visual elements" stuff is superfluous --Beachy 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. — Aldaron • T/C 22:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0 Lingo

I added the Web 2.0 lingo but it was removed without comment. Please vote for adding it: http://www.lingospace.com/web20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.193.153 (talk • contribs) 02:05, March 30, 2007 (UTC)

It was not removed without comment. It was noted as a removal of "link spam", which it is. Thank you for not re-adding it. -- Satori Son 02:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have a little more tolerance for this site if it wasn't cashing in on "Web 2.0" hype with Google adsense adverts. --Beachy 11:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where it is cashing in on adsense. Fromm

DO NOT remove the "Web Lingo 2.0" link unless you have a very good reason to do so. It is an interesting page that gathers the main Web 2.0 terms. Fromm

History of Web 2.0

What was the first Web 2.0 website? I'll bet it is considerably before the term was ever coined. Hotmail, perhaps?

I would hazard a guess at IMDb, which as a project not only predates "Web 2.0" but predates the Web. 217.155.20.163 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The developers of the Lotus Domino server software had a community site up and running for customers sometime in 1996. Rhsatrhs 11:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Germany.net, one of the early web-services in Germany; had quiet a selection of what is now called 'Web 2.0' applications as early as 1994. Efernie 15:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics of "Web 2.0"

Enhanced graphical interfaces such as gradients and rounded corners (absent in the so-called Web 1.0 era).

Is there a source for this; why is this considered to be part of "Web 2.0"?

Surely it has more to do with trends and fashions in graphic design and so forth, and doesn't really have anything to do with the Web at all (you see exactly the same design elements in magazines and other traditional printed media, as well as on websites that have none of the other so-called "Web 2.0" characteristics). A related trend seems to be the use of very rounded sans serif fonts such as Rundschrift and Arial Rounded (fonts which, ten years ago, would probably have been regarded as too "kiddy" for general use).

It just looks as though someone has tried to identify how websites created in 2007 differ from those created in 1997, without bothering to investigate exactly how these elements are related to the subject of this article.

The fact that these trends have coincided with "Web 2.0" doesn't mean they are inherently characteristic of "Web 2.0". It's a bit like saying leather seats, in-car MP3 players, and satellite navigation are inherent characteristics of cars that run on renewable energy sources. 217.155.20.163 10:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; glad this has been removed. Tadiew (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I removed some retarded pic that was placed in the article LSky 09:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding to criticism section

I'm in the process of adding to the criticism section. Please feel free to improve my writing, but please don't delete without consultation. I have to re-find most of my sources, after a HD crash, please be patient. --80.42.241.171 03:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Check out the History tab, at the top of all articles. Artw 23:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I undid the revision 202666327 by FayssalF in the criticism section as the claim it was syntheses is not the intent of the reference. The reference to the telegraph was an example of techno-utopianism. It is also reference the similar language used then and now. It is not meant to draw a specific conclusion that Web 2.0 will be historically analogous to the Telegraph. Indeed the telegraph was a physical reality and not some over hyped jargon as is Web 2.0. However should the community feel it is syntheses I am more than happy to remove the reference to telegraph and instead criticize the rhetoric used to describe web 2.0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchennau (talk • contribs) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Time for another archiving?

The talk page is getting a little long again. Artw 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. John Seward 17:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 58.179.10.234

58.179.10.234 keeps removing section on "Different Definitions without providing any explanations. Section restored. Fromm

New IT trend

Please participate to update the section of new IT trend. The title is reasonable and important but the contents are not enough yet. Especially, there is not well descriptions of the reasons and factors.

Is there any body who can explain why the following is not appropriate to be included in the article of WBE 2.0 or any article in Wikipedia?

Web 2.0 such as WiKi changes the IT trend from the flood of information to the flood of knowledge where information becomes knowledge by the human manipulation with a specific target. Hence, when Web 2.0 is fully deployed over the internet society, it is almost not necessary that we generate from informations to knowledge any more; just search and find well-organized and suitable knowledge (even more well organized than how you can do). One possible drawback is the potential for "bad knowledge" because of poor objectivity or improper clarification between the finder and the generator. Note that the definition of knowledge as used here can be somehow different from the general definition of knowledge.

--Maybe because it is incomprehensible?

Section "As forms of art"

Rewrote it because someone had added the word "idiots" to what was already a badly written paragraph. What it really needs is a citation demonstrating this point of view. I can't find one. Frankly, I suggest removing this whole bit, but perhaps someone can find a cite. Mordant Kitten 04:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. It seemed to be pusing someones slightly quirky opinion rather than being anything substantial. Artw 14:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Four levels of "Web 2.0-ness"

Are we sure we'd like to remove the examples given by Tim O'Reilly? [5] John Seward 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise 2.0 / eManagement

Here is a definition of enterprise web 2.0.

eManagement (eM) is the most powerful, efficient, effective, straight-forward, easiest, and affordable way to manage.

1) eM is a way of managing, not a package of technology solutions. It is very simple - you use the Internet to help you accomplish tasks and achieve goals.

2) A few of the technologies converging to form eM include: e-mail, CRM, SFA, ERP, BI, OBI, eBusiness, eMarketing, eCommerce, web-sites, Intranets and extranets, search engines, integration, integration servers, data-warehousing, ETL, remote and mobile access, PDA’s, Wi-Max, desktops, notebooks and laptops, operating systems, productivity tools, Windows, GUIs, networking, VoIP, TAPI, CTI, digital media, web-services, hosting, web-native applications and data engines, ASP, VPN, portable drives, IP storage, iSAN, intelligently managed IT, CoBiT, Internet security, ITIL, SaaS, knowledge and strategy mapping, eLearning, EIS, dashboard, Balanced Scorecard, ABC/M, gadgets, podcasts, RSS, HTML, XML, wiki, twiki, mashups, AJAX, REST, and SOAP.

Collectively, these technologies can be referred to as "e-mass".

3) eManagers use these tools, systems, and processes to develop and support their organizational interests. eManagers build "business logic" aligned with their organization's strategy and management style into their systems.

4) eManagers are simultaneously both actor and resource, working "peer-to-peer" across extended organizations - on demand, anytime and anywhere, with systems and data at their fingertips. eManagers both "give" and "take".

5) eManagement (eM) flows from leveraging integrated applications across the Internet, incorporating business logic and intelligence with management systems, and providing a collaborative, strategically aligned "best practice" environment. eManagers have a system to help them.

6) eM operates in real-time on a where and when needed basis, - promoting organizational objectives, collecting and sharing knowledge, and generating transactions. eManagers are accessible.

7) eManagement introduces a new paradigm – the multi-dimensional integration of information with process, delivered on demand to the point of contact with immediacy, richness, and context.

8) eM uses networks and communities to dynamically share information and processes across organizations, embracing an extended network of contacts, customers, suppliers, employees, sub-contractors, investors, target-markets, prospects, and all others within reach. eM supports team-work.

9) eM is knowledge-based and human centric, with a focus on the development of Intellectual Capital (IC) – human, structural, and relational. Intellectual Capital represents an organization's value-add. IC is what is added to resource inputs to create the organization's value proposition. eManagement adds energy to Intellectual Capital.

10) eM is personal. Every Internet(IP), remote or mobile contact is made as rich, human and personal as is appropriate with "face to face" interaction. This "personalization" includes: web cameras, web and voIP conferencing, iPhoto and other rich digital media sharing, email and instant messaging, plus many new hybrid technologies. eM includes standards, protocols, rights, responsibilities, ethics, laws, and regulations governing individual, private, public, and commercial Internet usage.

Source: Barry Monette (myself) circa 2004 www.emas.ca ````

Possibly this is a blog entry that ended up in the wrong place? Artw 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Firmage was easily the first to use "Web 2.0"

There are many more references to Web 2.0 by Firmage dating back to 2000 in articles, business plans, and interviews.

If you challenge this, I press this case.

I will post many more references shortly—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.242.88 (talk • contribs).

It looks like Firmage is talking about something quite different. If Firmage's use deserves treatment, then it should be handled in a separate article and disambiguated from the current usage, which originates with O'Reilly. — Aldaron • T/C 04:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging on this very important subject. Lets think about this.

Certainly the term Web 2.0 is used widely today as it was already when O'Reilly began his Web 2.0 conference. This begs the question how and where O'Reilly got the idea to start a conference of the same name. But to suggest that the definition of the term itself is universally agreed upon as defined by O'Reilly would require far more evidence than has been provided in this entry.

Firmage first defined Web 2.0 in 2000 in a business plan and investor and media sheets for OneCosmos. And if you do a lexis search, you will find Firmage (and others referring to Web 2.0) in exactly the context Firmage had been all along starting in 2000.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.242.88 (talk • contribs).

In the meantime, I think the article should omit Firmage and you should revert the intro to the way it has been for some time. Until a you can establish a clear case here in talk, inserting Firmage will likely cause an edit war. — Aldaron • T/C 15:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with a reversion pending more documentation, as long as we don't make this all about O'Reilly. I think the 2003 Firmage/CNet article clearly demonstrates however that the concept and terminology was already well developed and in use long before the Web 2.0 conference. In the interest of neutrality, I think the opening paragraph should not refer to anyone having coined the term but rather add a new section called "origins of the term" or something like that. From what little research I've done so far, I think that that would be a very interesting exploration.

Even more compelling is a centralized/web-based procurment system Joe concieved and built at USWeb called DNA. Microsoft funded the project to the tune of $75m. After the the bust, Microsoft took it back and called it .NET. THAT was most likely the beginning.

Give me some time to dig up more documentation.

In the meantime, someone should provide some evidence of O'Reilly's authorship of the term beyond naming a conference "Web 2.0" five years later. Tim knows well who Joe Firmage is and they have even met. Perhaps Tim would like to weigh in on this?

More later.

btw: Joe's first company Serius was also the first really complete commercially available Object Oriented development environment (which is still in on the Market today and called Novell AppWare)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.242.88 (talk • contribs).

Could User 67.169.242.88 please sign in? It is hard to take you seriously if you are not signed in and don't sign your posts! Thank you! I think there is also an over-emphasis on O'Reilly here (nothing against him at all- smart, great guy). I think we should talk about the Web 2.0 phenomenon. O'Reilly is significant though in that although he may not have been first (I personally have no opinion on that by the way) he absolutely took the conversation about it to another level. Is he cause or effect? Who knows! Alex Jackl 18:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've created an account. User:Ffilcnoyl 19:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Great- thank you! Look forward to dialogging with you! Alex Jackl 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm sure if we tracked down every use of "Web 2.0" prior to it coming into widespread use via O'Riely we'd end up with an article as a crufty as the Web 3.0 one. I would suggets we omit non notable instatnces of the phrase, and maybe set up a sub section for any notable ones if any exist. Artw 03:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I would strongly suggest making your case here before making any further edits to the abover the fold content. Artw 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. Alex Jackl 05:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WOW! After I wrote the above I wnt and saw the change you made Artw. You have some serious cojones to post the above request and make the change you did . You did not move it towards neutrality - you emphasized the contested information and cut out the opposing view point completely. Very poor Wikipedia practice. We have sources now from 2003 for both Firmage and O'Reilly. I have put neutral text in place in an attempt to stop an edit war. Let's discuss the sources and when we come to some agreement lets craft the wording of that first paragraph. For the record I don't care if it was Firmage, O'Reilly or Scott McNealy who said it first, and I think it doesn't matter- I just want the article to be accurate. Alex Jackl 05:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The above the fold section of the article should be left in the state it has been relatively stable as until such time as a decent case hads been made for changing it on talk. As far as I can see no such case has been made. Artw 06:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring a harsh fact- well-sources references were presented that O'Reilly had not coined the phrase- at least not in 2004. This needs to be resolved but we need to keep the thing neutral until it is resolved. I deliberately kept it neutral to stop an edit war. Please don't keep pressing. I am not championing Firmage- I am just clear that it is now unclear and needs to be clarified. I will keep it. Can we have some other objective users please step in? I am suggesting we keep a neutral opening until this is resolved. Please post the source showing O'Reilly's earliest coining please... PLEASE DON'T REVERT AGAIN Artw! Alex Jackl 14:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting it again. No case has been made fgor changing it and until such a case has been made it shouldn't be changed - anhd that includes your "neutral" changes. Artw 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay- I am not getting into an edit war with you about something I don't care about.. but lets be clear. This is a clear POV push on your part. I am not saying that O'Reilly didn't coin the phrase- I am just saying that of the source spresented so far Firmage has the ealrier article mentioning the words "Web 2.0". This is an encyclopedia article- not an advertisement for O'Reilly. I request someother editors step in! Artw= I am really ofering you the opportunity to do the right thing and revert your POV changes. The case has been made- right now the facts seem to point that O'Reilly utilized and unquestionably popularized a term that has been around before then. Please present a source that says otherwise. Just because you don't like that someone found an earlier source than you doesn't make you in the right. If you read the above string - you are a minority of one n your opinion about this. I would change tactics or O'reilly might get erased form the article a that would be shame because then I would have to fight the bring the pendulum back. PLEASE OTHER EDITORS - jump in .... Alex Jackl 04:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on wording re; origin

Outside opinion by User:Anchoress
Well, I'm an 'other editor', and to me it seems clear that if there is evidence that the term was being used before the time it was supposedly coined by Tim O'Reilly, then the article can't say it was coined by Tim O'Reilly. My suggestions would be (giving two because I haven't seen the refs relating to the earlier use by Firmage):

The first known use of the term in publication was by Firmage on X date in Y publication. The term was popularised with its current definition by Tim O'Reilly beginning on X date in Y context.

The first known published use of the term with its current definition was by Firmage on X date in Y publication. The term was popularised by Tim O'Reilly beginning on X date in Y context.

--Anchoress 06:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone manages to make the case on talk that there was a notable concept that predating "Web 2.0" as we know it that went by the same name, then I would be for mentioning it in the article, and if it was particularly notable it might be worth considering mentioning it above the fold. So far neither of these have occured - all we have is a bunch of editors trying to make an end-run about talk and give this unverified factoid of low importnace pride of place in the article, something that would contracdict the NPOV:Undue Weight section on minority views.

I understand there might be some semantic quibbling about whether a term can be "coined" more than once. Personally i don't see any problem with the use of "coinied" in this context, even if some off-hand reference to "Web 2.0" in a different context had been made. If we *do* want to use a word other than coined on the off-chance that they did then it is an entirely different matter than whether or not we mention Firmage. Artw 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The crux is, I believe, that we should endeavour to be as accurate and specific as possible, within the boundaries of relevance, and whether above or below 'the fold'. The term 'coined' is sometimes appropriate but not mandatory. It may be in some instances both accurate and encyclopedic to refer to a word as 'coined by so-and-so', but it may be more accurate and encyclopedic to simply state the facts. BTW I am not attempting to assert any facts, as I said above I haven't yet examined the references. If references exist that both a) provide evidence that some usage predates O'Reilly's, and b) state that the term was coined by O'Reilly, then we may modify my above suggestions to state that "Such-and-such publication (or such-and-such person) states that the term was coined by Tim O'Reilly." Anchoress 06:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

SO what do we do... it looks like right now we have one reference from 2006 by a lawyer claiming that O'Reilly used the word in 2003 and one 2003 reference for Firmage. Looks like we should say Firmage coined the term and O'Reilly popularized. If someone has other references they should bring them in otherwise I will correct the opening paragraph tomorrow. Please post the refence here if we have an earlier "Web 2.0" reference. Alex Jackl 04:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Firmage may have been the first one in the literature to use the term "Web 2.0", but it is clear that what they said is a totally different concept compared with "Web 2.0" as defined by Tim O'Reilly and used by the mainstream nowadays. It may make an interesting trivia but is largely irrelevant. It may merit a passing mention somewhere down in the body, but just a passing one, and never in the lead. John Seward 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

@Anchoress: please check the facts before you write. No one is talking about Bill O'Reilly here. John Seward 14:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, my mistake. Thanks for catching that!! Anchoress 14:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes you say that, John? I read the Firmage reference- there wasn't a lot said but it was used in at least the general context. What I don't understand is the strong reactions. There is a prior reference to the term being used, therefore it is not accurate to say O'Reilly coined the term unless we discover a earlier reference to O'Reilly coining it. Isn't that straightforward? People keep making assertions but the facts are not fitting it. This may be one of those cases where the popular belief is not accurate. Can one of the O'Reilly advocates please show us a single reference before 2003 of O'Reilly using the term "Web 2.0" and we are in business. Until then the facts are in Firmage's court- comments about it being a "different concept " not withstanding. He was talking about the next generation of Web tools and comparing it to software releases- sounds like the same general concept to me. I repeat I don't care about the particulars but I care about the facts.Alex Jackl 04:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Firmage did not come up with the term in it's current usgae - please do not repeat your edit stating he did as it is a distortion of fact. If you have an edit in mind to deal with semantic quibbles over whether something can be "coined" twice or whatever then knock yourself out. As you say, I don't care about the particulars but I care about the facts, and the facts do not support your guy being an important contributor to the development of the Web 2.0 concept. Artw 06:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all committed to "Firmage". He is not "my guy". I never even heard of him until he was brought up here. What I care about are facts. It does seem like O'Reilly is "your guy" So much so I am beginning to owrner if you work for O'Reilly. What is the big deal here? Your opinion about the term "Web 2.0" has no research behind it or references. However I agree with you this whole "coined" thing is a little irrelevant. I will make edits to the site to reflect that and take this contentious piece out of the article until it gets worked out with real references here on the talk page.Alex Jackl 14:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Artw- not bad. It speaks to the term and doesn't engage in the whole "coining controversy" at all. Alex Jackl 04:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's actually largely the work of Pedant17, I believe. :-) Artw 05:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedant17! Wow- strange seeing you in this context! Well- good work!:-) Alex Jackl 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert war over 'Core concept of Web2.0' [6]

I haven't examined the recent edits with a microscope, but just from watching my watchlist it's clear that at least one editor is skirting very close to 3RR. I personally find the paragraph completely comprehensible, although if it is a repeat of information presented elsewhere it may be redundant. Can we take this issue to the talkpage, rather than trying to gain consensus through battling edit summaries? Please and thank you. Anchoress 02:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Variants of the text at Web_2.0#The_Core_Concept_of_Web_2.0 have been readded to the article a number of times, and I have deleted them each time since all they do is restate the contents of the lead and pretty poorly at that. I say delete the section. Artw 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is good because it is a more neutral conversation. I say put it in. Alex Jackl 04:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The section does not deserve to be in the article. It is a largely trivialising re-statement of the much more elaborate and well-written lead and the "Defining Web 2.0" section. John Seward 14:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

=== Revert Dispute over Web 2.0 Definition "a pronounced distinction between functionality and web technology, enabling significantly easier development of new business-models and processes by using readily-available intuitive modular elements" was removed by Jehochman.

Please vote on whether it should be reincluded.

Dispute: A pronounced distinction between functionality and web technology

Web 2.0 Definition

"A pronounced distinction between functionality and web technology, enabling significantly easier development of new business-models and processes by using readily-available intuitive modular elements" was removed by Jehochman and subsequently reverted by YAM.

Please comment on whether it deserves to be in the article.

YAM 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC) YAM

The problem I'm having is that the editor, User:YAM, wants to cite this to a non-notable corporate blog: http://www.copywritingexperts.co.uk/web-20, that doesn't qualify as a reliable source. In fact, I think this is really just spam presented as a reference on an unnecessary bit of original research. Full details of my investigation are available at WP:ANI. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam is material that is irrelevant and detracts from the end user experience. This, on the other hand, is extremely relevant, highly unique content that serves to further the cause of knowledge. By no stretch of imagination can this possibly have anything to do with spam.

YAM 10:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)YAM

It's non-notable corporate blog. Your determination is going to backfire. Please listen to reason. Wikipedia isn't a place for promoting minor websites by adding them as references to high profile articles. How did you even find this website? - Jehochman ^Talk 10:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I'd like to point out, that the link [7] appears to be a blog. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 says: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.". Just something to think about... SQL^{(Query Me!)} 10:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Non-notable blog". "Minor website". "how did you even find this website". Your condescending attitude is absolutely remarkable. The World Wide Web, and by corollary, Wikipedia, is democratic in nature. This implies that quality content will ultimately be treated as such by the wider community, and any attempts to force otherwise will backfire. If you truly believe in furthering the cause of knowledge as you claim to, you will find that detracting from a website merely because it is small or "minor" will not serve the purpose.

YAM 10:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)YAM

Wikipedia is not a democracy. I agree with Jehochman's analysis but if you truly believe that your link is high quality, then leave it here on the talk page and a neutral editor will add it if they agree with you. Please don't add it again yourself. Sarah 10:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, the link is still in the article because I walked away from the edit war. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 10:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SQL and apologies Jehochman. When I checked the history I noticed that you'd edited it last and so I assumed that you'd removed and didn't look really closely. Sorry about that. I think it's fairly clear that the link fails RS but we'll see if a neutral party disputes that. Cheers, Sarah 10:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The website at http://www.copywritingexperts.co.uk/web-20 is the only place on the Internet that expounds upon the increased distinction between functionality and technology as a feature of the Web 2.0 paradigm. It therefore deserves to be included in it. Otherwise, the readers will have the disadvantage of having to Google the idea when a single link can clearly elaborate upon it. YAM 11:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)YAM

The link should not be included. See discussion and resolution of this issue at WP:ANI#User:YAM. -- Satori Son 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My contribution to the article "A pronounced distinction between functionality and web technology" is still in the Web 2.0 definition, and yet the admins still insist on not including the aforementioned link as a reference, EVEN THOUGH I obtained the idea solely from that source and which exists nowhere else. The value of the idea is plain for all to see, as is the fact that the editors still insist on discriminating against a valuable source simply because it does not meet some obscure guideline.

This reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Knowledge is thus the only loser, and Wikipedia must amend its rules to make room for such valuable sources that are relatively new. I appeal to all to include the reference." —Preceding unsigned comment added by YAM YAM (talk • contribs) 08:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You were recently blocked for disruption. Can you make the necessary adjustments? Your views do not reflect the consensus. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service, nor is it a platform for individuals to promote their novel ideas. Continuing to harp on this issue is disruptive, and may result in further blocks. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My "novel" view is still on the page. Readers are free to decide for themselves  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YAM (talk • contribs) 16:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some say that"

Please name the experts, or modify the statement made in this edit. "Some say that" is a way to insert original research and opinions. Who said it, and what's the source? - Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A translation of real world social and business processes to the Internet.

I wish to suggest this is part of Defining Web 2.0. It is pretty much self evident. The new Web consists of shifting entire business processes to the Internet, including banking, retail, B2B transactions, stock markets, and also development of entirely new business models like prediction markets, and domaining. Please discuss. YAM 17:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks like original research. Wikipedia is not a place to discuss and publish new ideas. Try WebmasterWorld.com instead. Please don't lower the quality this article by inserting original research. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Buzz time bar

Isn't the buzz time bar image merely original research? Is the German blog which is its source reliable and authoritative? Have other reliable sources verified the "age of some buzzwords sometimes used in Web 2.0 lingo and its dependencies" the image claims to represent? Perhaps it should be removed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Zap. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi Protection

What's the dealwith the semiprotection tag? Vandalism hasn't really crept up above the normal baseline for this article lately, and is dealt with almost immediately, so I;m puzzled why we need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Added Buzzword tag

I just added the Buzzword tag to the article. We should also weed out jargon, weasel wording, marketese (Why no article? Try this for now [8]), and plain old bullshit. After skimming through this Talk page, it seems that I am not alone in my concern. One example of many from the article, "The transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality, thus becoming computing platforms serving web applications to end-users." -- 201.19.77.39 21:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

While the term "information silos" needs clarification, the article as a whole does not warrant tagging. It's clear from the history of this article that a lot of very technology-focused people are bothered by the term, but that doesn't make it a "buzzword". The term is very widely used and accepted in many circles, where it has clear meaning. — Aldaron • T/C 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not focus exclusively on the one example that I gave. As I said, I believe that the article as a whole needs weeding, and that the tag is warranted. A "buzzword", from that article, is "an idiom, often a neologism, commonly used in managerial, technical, administrative, and sometimes political environments. Though apparently ubiquitous in these environments, the words often have unclear meanings." This exactly fits many examples found in Web 2.0. We should assume that many readers of this article will be reading it specifically to become informed about topics with which they are not already familiar. We should therefore be careful to write in a clear and informative style. Please take this criticism seriously rather than dismissing it, and help to fix these problems in the article. -- 201.19.77.39 10:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Except for the preachy part at the end, that's fine and good in the abstract, but be aware that in the context of the editing history of this article, restoring the tag could do far more harm than good. There is a camp of editors who are allergic to the Web 2.0 concept, and will take it as license to restart edit wars that have happily died down recently. — Aldaron • T/C 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm asking you to take my comments seriously, I'm obligated to take yours seriously in return. :-) In what way might restoring this tag do more harm than good? I don't see that edit wars are bad in and of themselves, if they lead to improvement of the article. "Edit wars" might easily be taken as a sign that the article needs to be improved, and their "dying down" as evidence that participants are fatigued, rather than that they are satisfied that the article does not need further improvement. I'm posting this in all seriousness - thanks for your attention. -- 201.19.77.39 18:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You got the the point more quickly in your edit summary: "Edit wars" = Bad, "No edit wars" = Good? Yes, edit wars are bad. By all means though, restore the tag if you disagree. — Aldaron • T/C 18:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest flagging the paragraphs you find objhctionable on Talk and then hashing out a replacement there - since substantial changes always seem to end up being discussed to death on the talk page anyway you'd be cutting to the chase. Alternatively you could tag the sections you fidn problematic. I would strongly adivise against tagging the whole article, as it can only lead to trouble for the reasons Aldaron has already mentioned.

I'd leave the lead as it is for now If I were you - it's been disvcussed to death recently and is the result of many compromises, so changes are likely to be problematic. Also IMHO the current stable version is pretty good. The rest of the article, on the otherhand, needs a lot of work. It's a big, thankless task, I;d be happy to see someone take it on. 20:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Aldaron on this one - the tag is more likely to do more harm than good. Artw 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for discussion. Can anybody please answer the question, "Why are edit wars supposed to be a bad thing?" (or link to previous discussion/explanation of this.) Thanks -- 201.19.77.39 10:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0 Mind Map

There is an inaccuracy in the description of the web 2.0 map. Angelmaier is a contributor, not the author of the image. The image doesn't have "services attached" but only links to wikipedia sources. Thanks. Franzacurta 08:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Web 2.0 and Amazon

I noticed that Amazon.com is mentioned under 'Criticism' as being an early creator of "Web 2.0" services. While this is true, it is IMHO a bad example because they were by no means the first to do so and mind you, this were the guys who patented things like shopping-cart clicks. The US Patent and Trademark Office recently agreed to reexamine their so called "one-click" patent. I found some information on Michaela Merz's (Founder of Germany.net) website [9] . As a German, I remember germany.net as a very successful online service with a lot of "Web 2.0" communications tools as early as 1994. A quick review of network-solutions whois-database gave me the following:

germany.net: Record created-date: 1994-08-05 amazon.com: Record created on 01-Nov-1994

Though germany.net might not be well-known in the U.S. , it had more then 650,000 users when it was swallowed by some big company in 1999. The article should reflect the "Web 2.0" pioneers as well as companies like Amazon. Efernie 03:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed, that nobody had anything to say about that. Isn't the history of Web 2.0 important? Any comments? Efernie (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article clearly has a positive POV when it comes to the technology discussed. Much work is needed.-- 63.160.254.51 (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide examples and suggestions for improvement. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I've added more to the criticism section -- Richard D. Chennault (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy/Economics of Web 2.0

I suggest deleting this section that was originally created by me and never modified substantially by somebody else. I have expertise in this field myself and besides citing myself (which is a rule for Wikpedia articles if you have expertise and draw from your own published knowledge) I prior cited other works in the same section. My contribution was considered as spam by some because I cite myself. I don't agree with this, but can understand the argument. But overall I think that if just Tapscott and Williams are cited here, then this is narrow-minded because it leaves out other views which is not my intention and is unbalanced. If anybody finds the economy section important, then please heavily edit and expand it, the current form is not sufficient, it doesn't satisfy NPOV because it heavily promotes one position (Tapscott/Williams) although others are in existence, but not cited and mentioned here. This discussion was a result of my creation of the economy section: Please take a look here and consider contributing/mediating the conflict that has arisen here. User talk: Crscrs.

Inaccurate or Misstated Premise in "Characteristics"?

In the Characteristics section the statement This stands in sharp contrast to hierarchical access-control in applications, in which systems categorize users into roles with varying degrees of functionality. is at the very least misleading, I think. User access to Web 2.0 applications/concepts is for the most part hierarchical: user input may be anonymous but more often now requires registration or identification of some sort (so: anonymous: view only; registered: contribute); in the case of more sophisticated applications, registered users may be able to edit and sometimes delete their own entries (IMDB, some technology news sites) but not those of others; the application will have an owner(s) who can edit and delete any entry (with the possibility of levels of control) and who can most likely remove the application entirely; in any case, the highest level of access/control will be on the system end. Wikipedia is unusual in allowing virtually anyone contribution/editing access, but even here there are different access control levels (normal; restricted to users of a certain tenure; locked) and whether or not it is done, the ability to remove an article/item in toto almost certainly exists at some level very few people have.

I have removed the sentence and replaced it with: This stands in sharp contrast to traditional websites which limit visitors to viewing and whose content can only be modified by the site's owner. Tadiew (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

all wrong  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.194.84 (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC) 

First Section

What's going on with the first section? Very weird. Whoever put it there does not _sound_ clueless but the "I, <name>" and the non-wrapping sentence make me wonder. Lesonyrra (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC) And everyone like to use it instead of bullet points —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.126.29 (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

HTML=Web 2.0?

is HTML or Flash web 2.0? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loogiesquared (talk • contribs) 04:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither.lol read the articleTowel401 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Web 2.0 is more like wearing your underwear backwards and having a bunch of geeks proclaim it as the second coming because it is a new way of doing the same bullshit people have been doing for a long time. You can call it underwear 2.0

Definition

"Web 2.0 is a simple concept - you make the content and they make the money." is one of the better summations of the trend, as exemplified by any number of 'web 2.0' websites. Don't get into edit wars over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.122.54 (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What you are arguing about here is a synthesis and it is not allowed in Wikipedia because it is considered original research which is not substained by any source whatsoever. On another note, I believe that your synthesis is different from the trends. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition edit

I edited the last line of the definition section, at first to correct misspellings, and then added to the sentence, which could be considered to have changed the meaning of the sentence, so I am no longer sure it qualifies as a minor edit. This is my change "(→Definition Changed sentence "In face Web 1.0 came into use after the evolution og web 2.0." to "In fact the term Web 1.0 came into use after the evolution of the term Web 2.0.")." Does anyone feel that the addition of the words "the term" before Web 1.0, and Web 2.0, actually changed the intent of the original sentence? The misspellings needed correction, and I think adding in the phrase "the term" clarified the sentence without changing the meaning. Any objections? Gramery (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Use of "the term xxxxx" is fine. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

2001?

The opening paragraph states that the term found notoriety in 2001, while no references exist before 2004-5 in the end section... Could someone clarify when O Reilly made his first mention of Web 2.0?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.42.192 (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• The current text states that it came into use after 2001, i.e. the so called dot-com bubble. In his article What is Web 2.0, dated September 2005, Tim O'Reilly says that the term arose in a brainstorming session that led to the first Web 2.0 conference in 2004. Until we can find evidence of when that brainstorming session happened, we have to take the date of that conference (now called the Web 2.0 summit) as the birth date of the term. Does everyone else agree? Greyskinnedboy (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Does CSS need to be dressed up for Web 2.0

I think the answer is yes. Since the web is becoming more and more xml dominated css has to provide ways to butify xml(which it already does) and to add other content to the page like menu items footer header etc and many more such enhancements. currently you can't write text to a document using css this would lead to many advantages like. 1. You can view xml files in browser more like html or xhtml files and still get the menus and the supplimentary text. 2. Applications can still access the content in xml format for parsing and thus info exchange. this will again lead to other advantages like reduction of burden on parsers, developers struggling with javascript and client sided parsers! if integrated to the core of a browser it could make browsing the web more versatile and faster and a lot more!

Shashi (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Connect2shashi

Made-up words can do whatever you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.176.10 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

image

explain to me what this image adds to the article: [10]. the article explains what web 2.0 is, and lists samples. why should some random person's nifty slide be added? maybe I should create one with more colors, and list my own opinion as to what particular terms should be included in the picture. sheesh, and I thought this was an encyclopedia, not a place for people to feature their amateur artwork. Angrysusan (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

apparently no one disagrees with me? Angrysusan (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that this image/slide is a telling example of how to view the web 2.0, and if I'm not mistaken is used prominently by O'Reilly and the likes. As such it is one of the useful illustrations of the concepts behind Web 2.0, and I would say it has its place there. Meso (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

News, Articles and White Paper Section under External Links Section

I have added a new sub-section to this wiki page along with a link to a free white paper on Web 2.0. Let me know if this ok?

Pratheepraj (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. First, we don't need subsections in the External links section. Second, it is a low content, self-published, and high advertising link, which doesn't fit our external link guidelines. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

ok Pratheepraj (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and Bruce Streling

As much as I enjoy sci-fi, isn't referring to Bruce Sterling a bit of Ad Verecundiam? Has he become an authority on web development lately? --JECompton (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation

What is the common pronounciation (if any) of "Web 2.0"? So far I have heard (from non-native speakers) "web two zero", "web two dot zero" and "web two point oh". --92.75.198.213 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• The most common I've heard (in the UK and NZ) is "web two point oh". Greyskinnedboy (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Range of Encompassing

Is Computer-generated imagery (aka Machinima) and Middleware considered as Web 2.0. I mention middlewares, because they are commonly use with collaboration software such as Microsoft Office Live, Web Service, Types of Information Exchanges Standard (e.g. JSON (a type of OOP notation) and XML).

On the non-technical side of middleware, they are used in XMPP (aka VoIP) which utilize the Cloud Computing Infrastrucutre and I think these can be considered as Web 3.0? I mean Mobile Internet (which originate from Netbooks) and Cloud Computing should play a very large roll of the Web Culture generation right? --Ramu50 (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Declaration

I am a Web 2.0 Summit speaker. If anyone thinks my edits to this article violate WP:NPOV, please let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)