Posted inour digital future tech trends

What in the world is Web 2.0?

10/2/20055 Comments

This is not a term I am particularly fond of simply for the fact that no two people seem to define it in the same way. Also, call me a curmudgeon, but I just don’t like buzz words. Since I categorically refuse to use a term I can’t clearly define, I set out to learn how other people define Web 2.0. I read a bunch of blog posts and articles, but came out even more confused. Is Web 2.0 the Semantic Web? Is it social software? Is it the same as Web Services, the freeing of content from applications so that content can be combined and reused in myriad ways? Is it any web application that is dynamic, scalable, interoperable, etc? Or is it simply going beyond the static HTML page? I understand the individual examples, like Flickr (Web 2.0) vs. Ofoto (Web 1.0) and taxonomy (Web 2.0) vs. folksonomy (Web 1.0), but examples do not make a definition.

Here are some of the things I read in the attempt to define Web 2.0. Maybe you can make better sense of it all:

I agree that something interesting is happening on the Web. I love the idea of the Semantic Web, I get excited about the power of Web Services, and I spend my nights dreaming about the applications of social software in libraries. But Web 2.0?

Maybe I can get a little more excited when I finally understand what it is.

Last updated on 10/2/2005

5 Comments

  1. Chad
    10/2/2005,

    To me, “Web 2.0” is more of an attitude and philosophy than any particular programming architecture or group of web sites. To be Web 2.0 compliant, you have to be extremely user-focused, often to the point of giving up control of your data and/or architecture to the users. Collaboration, new methods of information delivery and aggregation, and a lot of interactivity play a roll as well.

    Not very specific, I know. And in the end, “Web 2.0” is really a buzzword for stuff we already had. But sometimes grouping like concepts into a single package can help. I guess we’ll see.

  2. docwolf
    10/3/2005,

    Maybe it’s akin to the supreme court definition of pornography… you know it when you see it.

  3. Rebecca Hedreen
    10/3/2005,

    I think of the focus of Web 2.0 as being user control. Does the software designer mandate what I do with my data, or can I as the user decide? How much control do I have over what I see and how I work? I could use Flickr to be a plain storage site, with no tagging or other uses–pure accessioned storage. Or I can tag for easier retrieval. Or I can create a photo blog. Or I can join one of the groups or participate in a project. Or I can just search for other’s work, maybe by Creative Commons licensing.

    And that’s the other part, the acknowledgement by the service providers that the user is part of the content creation process, and may be more important than the provider. Flickr would be empty without the users; Amazon would be just another online bookstore without customer reviews and the purchases that provide the “Also bought” links.

    Reading this over, I don’t think this adds up to any more of a definition than the links you had in the first place.

Comments are closed