Talk:Web 2.0

Criticism Section 1

Since there is so much dialog, I have created this sub-section for my edit. I removed the line referencing the book. This is not how to write an encylopedic article. If you are going to cite a book, you add it as a reference and then provide a numeric inline citation using Wiki markup. Plus this is not an college paper, APA, or MLA, its not really the best use of the text to provide a full blown inline book citation and then follow with a supporting statement; the Wiki markup has a far more eloquent solution for that, which assists the researchers of an article to verify its notability. Therefor, there is no need to provide inline book style citations in the article text. The other point is that there were probably many books written about it, at that time, and about that subject. If you are going to list one, list many, and provide them all as citations in support of the criticism. This strengths the position by providing it in a neutral way. Also, if you are going to quote someone, you really need a citation. I will check back and if that person quoted does not have a citation soon, I will be forced to blank that line. I agree with the criticisms, but it does not lend it due credit if it the prose is not well formed. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 13:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism: Gorman (what does he mean?)

Anybody want to take a stab at clarifying the paraphrase of Michael Gorman in the last paragraph of the Criticism section? Does "due to the lack of expertise that it outwardly claim" mean "because Web 2.0 content claims an expertise that it does not in fact have" ? Or does it mean "because of the lack of expertise that Web 2.0 content shamelessly flaunts" ? Bartleby62 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Right there: This whole page should be a criticism: Web 2

The whole Web 2 should be a criticism. The web 2 exists only in the mind of some smart guys. There is no hardware or software that is thinking about web 2. Is facebook web 2? Then we are web 2. Is facebook web 1.X than we are dot X.

Indeed web 2 was a concept. It was about user interaction. We passed it too fast. We need web 3: TV on demand. I login and ask: CSI, year 1, episode 3, or the last berlusconi giggles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G silvestro (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole page should be a criticism

Any computer savvied person understands what has truly changed the last few years is the polishing of technologies that were already in place and the emergence of the wikis, mainly through wikipedia as well as the emergence of democratic voting sites like digg.com and reddit. There are more sources needed on reflecting those ideas because it's all over the place. We had videos, it just wasn't apparent enough. The internet got faster eventually, so what? It was to be expected, no "web 2.0" emerged, it just was the progress it would inevitably be (and it was slowly gradual and it keeps happening). Graphics and html rendering technologies got getter, so what? It was happening all the time and it keeps happening. It's insulting hearing people self-labeled to be computer scientists working on this jargon just for the sake of their parent company that wants this marketing in order to sell packages to customers that are foolish enough to upgrade just because they think they aren't "web 2.0" ready. Besides, web 2.01 would be the next day since, the internet is all-evolving. fs 22:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Web 2.0 coincided with the year 2000 or 2k. What has followed in the last 10 yrs has been amazing, and I think we are into 2.10. What would be the difference between web 2.0 and 2.1? Lots, beginning with higher speed, wimax explosion etc. Raul Singh

Repeated vandalism

There have been repeated childish edits from 72.21.96.9 which the valiant efforts of a number of editors have kept on top of. Is there any way this IP address could be blocked? (I know that's not fool-proof, but it would reduce it for a while at least). Greyskinnedboy (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this article promote the subject in a subjective manner?

User User:Axel_Löfving has posted a peacock on this article (unfortunately without starting a discussion thread to present his points about which aspects are subjectives. I have posted on his talk page to invite him to add his points here. I would suggest that if he provides nothing to back this up, the tag is removed.

My comments there:

If you are going to do something as potentially confrontational as posting a peacock on a very active article like Web 2.0, could you at least open a dicussion on your reasoning so that it can be resolved? For some reason, the whole topic seems to raise emotions on both sides - it seems to be either a holy grail or the anti-christ (depending on the position) - in reality it is neither, it is a term coined to describe a shift in the way many people were thinking about and/or using the technology across the Internet. Sure, it gets hyped up by the evangelists, but there is a generally accepted definition (quoted and cited in the article); this is a term used in the media, industry, and increasingly by the general population. Could you lay out which aspects you regard as subjective, then there can be an open (and no doubt heated) discussion about it, but hopefully the article that results will be better for it. Thanks.

Let the games commence. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted the peacock notice, and I felt that it spoke for itself. To me, that wasn't about the promoting of the subject in a non-neutral matter (which I'm entirely uninterested in), but that the article was so steeped in jargon that I couldn't understand anything of it. I thought peacock stood for jargon, which is what makes this article unintelligible, at least to me. If I had any suggestions as to how to improve the article, would have started editing and/or posted some notice on this talk page. But as is, I can't make heads or tails on this article, because it's all marketspeech. Axel Löfving (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There probably is too much jargon in this article and it should be cleaned up. Following the deletion of Web 3.0 (now saved to User:Greyskinnedboy/Web_3.0), I'm working on some suggestions which I will be posting back here to get consensus before changing anything. Thanks. (BTW: there are templates for jargon cleanup) Greyskinnedboy (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see where in agreement :) (not much gamecommencing, thus ;P). English isn't my first language and I've mainly been editing the swedish wikipedia, were things work a bit differently. I realize now I came off as quite rude. Cheers to you for being so levelheaded. Axel Löfving (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

With the deletion today of Web 3.0, I have proposed that sub-sections are added to the Web 2.0 article for both Web 1.0 and Web 3.0, with the terms redirecting to those sub-sections. I have gained access to the deleted article of Web 3.0 so that I can prepare that. If successful, I then propose to merge Web 1.0 as well. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A small section might be appropriate, but I suspect it suffer from the same problems as the web 3.0 article did - i.e. since a lot of people have individually incrimented Web 3.0 by 1 and come up with a meaning for it editors will try and include all of them, making it a huge cruft-magnet. The Web 1.0 article seems harmless but fairly pointless to me, and could probably be merged or simply redirected to here. Artw (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My intent was to have a brief run through of the version numbers, with a paragraph or two at most. The Web 2.0 article is over long as it is, but most people seem to agree that (for the time being) Web 1.0 and Web 3.0 do not warrant their own articles, as they are reflections forwards and backwards from the current state. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to a parallel example, that of neologism and protologism. A neologism is a new word that is starting to be commonly used (like Web 2.0), while a protologism is a new word that has not entered common usage (like Web 3.0). The entry for protologism is actually a sub-section within the article on neologism, and serves as a prototype for how Web 3.0 should be treated within the article Web 2.0 (and Web 1.0 for that matter). Greyskinnedboy (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Both the reference to Web 1.0 and Web 3.0 only came to existence after the term Web 2.0 was coined. If Web 3.0 has been merged with Web 2.0 surely it is logic that a historic reference such as Web 1.0 which was only defined after the fact, should be merged with Web 2.0. I support Greyskinnedboy and strongly suggest a merger. The first Rambo movie was called "First Blood" not "Rambo I", and subsequently that has not been changed - not even on Wikipedia, where the link still refers to the origional title. Web 1.0 was not originally called Web 1.0, let's remove the misconception by merging the term with Web 2.0.--Gotfredsen (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... If I pick up a dictionary, will it insist on using World War I under World War II, because the former only became common use after the latter began? Or would a dictionary list the two world wars separately, under their commonly accepted names? avaiki (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Although it is more correctly called The Great War, there was actually a discreet event with a definitive start and end to which we can refer (by whatever name we choose). It's OK that it's a retronym (i.e. named after the fact) because it was a real event ... but Web 1.0 didn't really exist/happen! OK, that's mainly because Web 2.0 doesn't really exist either.

Web 2.0 is a socio-technical phenomenon, and although created for marketing reasons it is now well into common or even mainstream usage. Web 2.0 reflects a definite zeitgeist and has reached a critical mass or tipping point, so it now cannot sensibly be argued that it doesn't deserve it's own article. Web 1.0 on the other hand, only makes sense in relation to Web 2.0 and cannot really stand in it's own right (as could the definition of World War I). On that basis, I suggested merging it with Web 2.0. Partly this was also done as a way of rescuing Web 3.0 which was created and deleted so many times, that I devised a different approach that would enable it to be retained as a reflective (forward looking) meditation on Web 2.0 ... in that way Web 1.0 is also a reflective (backward looking) meditation on Web 2.0.

However, what I originally suggested was chopping the whole Web 2.0 article down, and structuring a number of sub-pages underneath, and in that way I believe that Web 1.0 and Web 3.0 can live a sheltered life as their own article (hiding) under the wings of Web 2.0. On that poetic note, I think it's come time to start making that happen. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I vote Web 1.0 should be moved into this article. 59.167.219.63 (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This needs to be nipped in the butt. Web 2.0 exists and is definable, even if it is a marketing construct and we do not like it, the others are poorly defined at best and only exist as a consequence of 2.0 Marcus (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

no dont merge69.106.250.168 (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

All: I've tried to deal with this Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, X.0 stuff in the "History" section and the "Usage" section. I took out the merge proposal and instead discussed the ways in which O'Reilly et al contrast 2.0 with what they call 1.0. In "Usage," I added a bit about 3.0; however, I strongly suggest we do not expand on the 3.0 idea too much because it is even vaguer and fuzzier than 2.0. Those of you who shudder when you hear "2.0" (as I often do) will really, really, really dislike 3.0 because it is even less well-defined.

I can provide more sources to support my edits, if you need them. This is the stuff of my dissertation... Octavabasso (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Restructure proposal

Now I've spent some more time thinking through the merger proposal (above), I am concerned about the size of the article growing so quickly, at over 37K, will just get worse with adding in sections about Web 1.0, Web 3.0, and Web 2.1, etc.

Would it make sense now to chunk it down into a main page and some sub pages (i.e. with a '/' slash), to keep everything organised together, while enabling us to make the chunks more digestible? Your thoughts, please. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know what was meant by Web 2.0, so it was nice having it as a separate topic on Wikipedia when I Googled it. Should you choose to merge the pages, it might still be nice to keep the stub out there with a link to the merged info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.228.195.206 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As another has stated, the article is getting too large to be easily managed as a merged article. My suggestion would be to have three separate sections for 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0, and a fourth section, with a relatively simple comparative chart, showing some examples of the sort of search results one might expect to see, under each. Doc2626 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a totally biased and flawed discussion - here's why

There is no reason to have a page for Web 2.0 if you do not think that such terms have any useful function. This page should be eliminated by the same logic that Web 1.0 and Web 3.0 were eliminated. To do otherwise would reflect a bias.

The term Web 2.0 does NOT have ANY standard or accepted definition by the majority of professionals or users in the Web Community. It is a hotly debated term that was propagated for marketing reasons to promote a conference.

The terms Web 1.0 and Web 3.0 are equally, and not less, undefined and non-objective in meaning. In particular Web 1.0 only has meaning by reference to Web 2.0. As for Web 3.0 there is at least very wide usage -- and even an industry conference -- as well as hundreds of articles in blogs and mainstream press -- that refer to it. The definition is subjective, just like Web 2.0.

The Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. It is supposed to reflect the concepts in our culture, even those that are not objectively definable. If they are active enough concepts to be cited by significant numbers of people and even the media, then they deserve their own pages.

It was absolutely the wrong decision to delete the Web 3.0 page and all that will result in is a huge wiki war. At the end of the day, Wikipedians should be stewards and curators who try to accurately reflect the world, not knowledge engineers who are trying to make a minimal representation. There is no constraint in size in the Wikipedia so there is no reason to delete the Web 3.0 page. There is no objective or sound reason NOT to have a page about Web 3.0 given all the facts above, the lack of any objective reason to NOT have it, and the fact that so many people WANT it.

Please see this article and definition of Web 3.0 as a time period http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/2009/03/web-is-20-years-old-web-30-third-decade-of-web-officially-begins.html

Also note this query for "Web 3.0" in Google returns over 2.2 million results. If that isn't indicative of the validity of this concept what is??? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22web+3.0%22

--- Nova Spivack, CEO, Twine.com (One of the Original contributors of the wrongfully deleted Web 3.0 page) email me at: nova at twine dot com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.87.210 (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there:

Web 2.0 is just a buzzword, a marketing and technical jargon that group several concept in a (really) wide scope, but technically speaking, Web 2.0 is a superset of Web (Web 1.0) plus adding other protocols to the preexist ones (HTML, HTTP), the main and principal is XMLHTTP (usually called Ajax) or a two-way-asynchronous connection but it is not limited to other protocols.

In opposite, Web 3.0 is not bringing any new, Web 3.0 sometimes is defined as a business model,other times as a conceptual design,also is defined in a different field, but technically is not different to web 2.0 --200.83.2.4 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2009

But yes, Wikipedia has accepted many other entries that are more weak that Web 3.0, the real trouble here is the "nerd rage" concept, even showing valid proof of it will not help at all. (UTC)--200.83.2.4 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Web 2.0 stands on its own merits, regardless of what happens to the article on Web 3.0. 2.0 is well established in many circles, and needs an article here. If there is any relationship at all, it's that 2.0 (whatever it's merits) defines both 1.0 (what came before 2.0) and 3.0 (what comes after 2.0), so that it is axiomatic that if you want a 3.0 article, you have to accept a 2.0 article—but the converse is not true. — Aldaron • T/C 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Copy that. I think a merge is the best solution. A paragraph each would be plenty. Might add this to my to-do list. Any continued (and non-caps-locked o_0) objections? Publicly Visible (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Web 2.0 is not a buzzword, it has taken on meaning, regardless of its (supposed) origin. The suggestion that a marketer coined the term and therefore it shouldn't be considered a valid term is not viable. Words are not tied to their origin, but to the life they take on. Otherwise we would be stripping thousands of words from usage.

Web 2.0 is ambiguous/complex And it is debated. And so are many complex concepts. Which is why this page exists, and it does a fairly good job of summarizing a complex and evolving concept.

Web 1.0? Never heard of it. It exists only in reference to Web 2.0. And whatever it was, it could easily be explained within the 2.0 article, and actually should be in 2.0 (IMHO).

Web 3.0? It is a good idea to retain this article from the user standpoint. In essence, 3.0 becomes the article capturing ideas for the future of the web. Where else would a user search if they wanted to see what ideas about the future of the web are?

Mposth (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Mark Posth

tt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.163.248.30 (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have read with interest the debates about the term Web 2.0. Here is an opinion from a totally different perspective.

My company provides self help web pages at several universities where students can register for qualifications and subjects. They do not need face-to-face contact with university staff.

Some of these clients are now putting pressure on us to add WEB 2.0 features. For some people out there, Web 2.0 has a very definitive and specific meaning. A page devoted to Web 2.0 is a must even if it is only to remind readers that Web 2.0 only represents "features" that were previously not used or associated with the Web. Regards.

Archive?

Someone want to archive this discussion page? It's very long. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Was way too long. Rror (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Technology

In the 'Technology overview' sxn, the Extensions 'bullet' says "Powerful algorithms that leverage the Web as an application platform as well as a document server." It seems to me that this is at once hype and contentless. Hype, because of the word "powerful"; I don't think the algorithms to do document creation or serving are particularly powerful (as opposed, say, to algorithms that do NLP or speech recognition or astronomy simulations or...); nor is it clear to me that "leverage" is anything beyond a buzzword. And contentless, because the Web 1.0 certainly used algorithms. I suspect the real point here is simply that technology can be used to allow user creation of information (like this wikipedia), as opposed to just reading/ browsing. So perhaps a rewording like "Technology to enable user-created and edited content." /s/ An Old Grump Mcswell (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That whole section was beset by a overload of buzzword hype. I have just tried to identify each list of adjectives and adverbs (and adjectival and adverbial phrases on the occasions where these had occurred), with a view to removing them where their contribution was no more than misplaced salesmanship or the obfuscation of underlying meaning or the disenablement of communication with the reader, the user or the potential future wiki-contributor, thereby leveraging my innate abilities as a non-silicon-based processing system (aka a human being) to try to reveal the underlying value-added understanding-enabling message. Sometimes, there was none. --Nigelj (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

EMPLOYEES LEGAL RIGHT

Hi could we discuss what are emaployees legal right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.60.57 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean to implement such information in the article? Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

google

Google now focuses more on distribution, so the description is a little out dated. Noghiri (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Flash Necessary?

"Of Flash's many capabilities, the most commonly used in Web 2.0 is its ability to play audio and video files. This has allowed for the creation of Web 2.0 sites such as YouTube, where video media is seamlessly integrated with standard HTML."

Excuse me, but how does Flash enable the creation of Web 2.0 sites, when it was already enabled by open standard formats and conformant media plugins? While Flash may seamlessly integrate video media with standard HTML, other formats/plugins did the same before Flash. Flash is simply another proprietary interlocked format/player combo designed to monopolize a very large market, like Microsoft Windows/Office formats/applications were designed to monopolize a very large market. For audio/video, Flash offers no advantages over the various media formats/players that came before it, some of which are open standards. Rtdrury (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. --Nigelj (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All hail HTML5 video/audio tags. Down with flash!— Supuhstar * § 17:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Of Flash's many capabilities, the most commonly used in Web 2.0 is its ability to play audio and video files. This has allowed for the creation of Web 2.0 sites such as YouTube, where video media is seamlessly integrated with standard HTML."

I'm going to disagree with this. Web 2.0 is supposed to be about User interaction, collaberation, etc... Users have no control over Flash. You either install it and it runs whenever it wants, or you don't get to use it. It makes you watch stupid & annoying commercials, and doesn't allow you to turn them off until they've already started. Doesn't sound very Web 2.0-ish to me.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is true, what you both said, Jonny Quick and Andy Dingley, regarding Flash, as not particularly being about collaboration etc. But Flash is being replaced by HTML5 for video content. The primary example is Youtube, another is Vimeo. However, in both cases, HTML5 is beta, and Flash is still offered, though that WILL change! At that time, we should remove some of the Flash specific content from the article. --FeralOink (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I still don't get it

Was their like an original version of the internet and they updated it or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NexCarnifex (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That's because there's nothing to get. It's just a buzzword. 86.140.136.88 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Web 2.0 is widely used, widely recognised, and most importantly, used with a consistent definition.

The first Web was static, hand-coded HTML. Even then though, it was always intended for automatic generation (HTML (1) wasn't designed to make hand-editing easy). Then it was created automatically by scripts, then scripts which could store input on the server (those first "guest book" scripts), later by reading database queries (on-line catalogues) and then updating the database from the web front-end too. Eventually this led to CMS (Content Management Systems) where these features were combined so that the whole content of the site was entered from the "front-end", rather than the back-end (i.e. editors). These were used by the site operators

Finally we saw sites where data could be entered by passing users (not just site owners), stored in SQL databases and then displayed. This was now Web 2.0 The crucial aspect wasn't the tech (this had actually arrived earlier, with the CMS), it was the ability for "user-created content". Rather than the site owner / publisher making the content for a site, they now put the empty site up and "If you build it, they will come" (which also means they'll build the content for free). Blogs, wikis, farcebook all rely on this. The tech's not a sufficient condition for Web 2.0, but it is a necessary one. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet, NexCarnifex is expressing a valid concern. Properly speaking, there is no 1st generation Web and no Web version 2.0. It is a buzzword and always will be. It really is a business model which relies on users to do the work of content building. You might have a philosophical problem with that (I do - I think it's free labor). And, the read/write Web that Andy Dingley describes was actually the intent of Tim Berners-Lee. However, as buzzwordy and clunky as the term is, Web 2.0 does exist in the sense that it is (somewhat) well-defined and very commonly used. Octavabasso (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the part that many people missed is that Web 2.0 is actually about web sites that leverage user-generated content to their advantage. In other words, everybody and their brother is creating content at Facebook by posting comments and photos, or messaging each other, and essentially all Facebook's creator did was write some computer code to facilitate the process. Ditto for sites like eBay, as the buyers and sellers load what amounts to advertising copy as descriptions of their items, additionally processing sales by their lonesome. And, oh-by-the-way, these techniques have been around nearly since the inception of the modern-day Internet in the form of really smart guys like Jeff Bezos who enticed readers to write their own book reviews, stuff like that. SK (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

'Hollow' websites: when Web 2.0 sites are first launched they are just a concept and some software, without content; then the users 'fill them up' and make them worth visiting. --Nigelj (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Seankinn is the closest. The label Web 2.0 has little to do with dramatic technical change, it's a label applied to a shift in how the web is used. I've worked with the web since the mid 90s, and in the beginning most organizations (business and government) treated the web as a medium for a one way flow of information that followed the classic process for print: research, write, select, proof, layout, approval, with a "final" copy that was then "published" to the web. Yes there were newsgroups, and feedback forms, but these were not integrated with the actual content (I remember having to close down a discussion group due the cost of moderating the discussion)

Over time people realized the benefit of linking the discussions to content, then realized that the a discussion is content (web stats showing a high viewership helped with this), then realized that they could make/save money with the discussions (product improvements, advertising sales, word of mouth marketing etc.), then finally realized that users were actually willing to complete the loop (i.e. generate the content that the discussions would be about) all the organization had to do was provide the right platform. Web 2.0 is simply a label for how organizations have shifted their approach to the web facilitate and harness the generated content and discussions. That's the problem for defining Web 2.0, it's not a single sudden thing that happened, it's more of a slow evolution that we finally noticed, and retroactively labeled.

From my perspective the biggest impact is the IM and IT management changes associated with Web 2.0 approaches. With user generated content there are privacy, liability and ownership issues, and from a technical standpoint there are far more security and reliability issues to deal with. That's how I often think of Web 1.0 to 2.0 the increasing level of complexity for management. --Realitystorm (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

State of affairs

This article is badly mis- or dis-organized, does not present a clear picture of what it really means. The section headings didn't really do the content any justice, not do they now. It had a section title "How it works", and then just threw around a few technology buzz words, following with a section of "Technology overview". Overviews should be first. Articles Web 1.0 and 2.0 should be merged as they discuss the identical concept of classifying technologies, marketing methodologies, business models, in rear-mirror view of the history of the web. "Web 1.0" doesn't mean much without "Web 2.0". By merging, a lot of content can be consolidated keeping article size lower, and the essence of these terms can be brought to mean something in the larger context. As it stands there is no clear presentation of the concepts. Kbrose (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rznc, 27 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Rznc (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What change do you want done? Place {{editsemiprotected}} when you have full details.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor is a sock of Raznice (talk · contribs), who was blocked indef for spamming on this and related articles. Favonian (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Web 2.0 is just a buzzword

There aren't versions of the "web." We've had online communities since the IRC days. We've had AJAX since 1999. People who tend to use this term are usually uninformed on the web and dont understand it is simply a buzzword that caught on. Just because a lot of people use it doesnt mean it is significant. LightSpeed (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I would rather think of it as innovation that has been made to web and changed the way we use the internet forever. Yes we still use what has been created before ,however, everything now revolve around the internet making our lives easier just because of such innovation called web 2.0 Amjaad1 (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Web 2.0 is a cultural phenomenon, and should be documented as such

(my opinion as a tech industry specialist/software engineer who has worked in and blogged about Web 2.0 phenomena)

I agree with LightSpeed, there are no "versions" of the Web. Web 2.0 was a catchall phrase to describe the changes that were happening to the web in the middle of the "noughties". There will never be a precise definition because there is no primary source (though Tim O'Reilly is thought to be the first to use it very publicly). Most people would agree that Web 2.0 is about the shift of websites from being static information repositories to being interactive, dynamic places - wikis, forums and communities are all part of this.

It is true that there was a time before this, but that doesn't mean that it is meaningful to call that Web 1.0. It is also true that we have now moved beyond Web 2.0, with the advent of AJAX, HTML5, virtual worlds, internet marketplaces, 3D browsing, etc - but these things are not Web 3.0, Web 2.1 or any other number. Any version number assignment would be arbitrary because it has no authority.

I actually don't see too much wrong with the page, but the correct way to frame it is as a historical account of the way the web was perceived at a point in time... just like you would write about the home computer revolution in the eighties or the public adoption of the Internet in the late nineties. Hope this helps Alexbowyer (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Minerva20 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Possibly under the wrong heading, but both references to the coining of the term by Darcy DiNucci are flawed. One no longer exists and the other is marked 'Account suspended'. Any suggestions where a primary source for this can be found?

A source for "Fractured Futures" has long been on her own site, where there's a scan of it. http://www.darcyd.com/

I was never convinced that this article saw "user-created content" as being significant, in the way that is generally recognised as being the essential part of Web 2.0 today (that dates from the O'Reilly conf). Even the title emphasises the platform fragmentation as being the main topic of the article instead. However she did clearly get dibs on that name first. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything on Darcy DiNucci's website that refers to Web 2.0. There is an email address, and a PDF of her current resume. There is nothing else linked from the main page. Why do we know that she "got dibs" on Web 2.0 first? I am not suggesting that any one else did before her, but don't see anything about it being her idea first. We should find something more about that, no? --FeralOink (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Because, as noted above, it was on her site in October. If you're chasing archives, then try http://archive.org Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

ASP and .NET

ASPs are the result of using server side executed scripts. ASP/APSX is not a script language.

.NET is not a script language either.

Split

This article contains a section on Web 3.0. Why would that be in here? That's like having a section on Windows 7 in the article for Windows XP. If anything, it should be a brief description with a {{main}} redirecting the viewer to a Web 3.0 article. — Supuhstar * § 16:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: as Web 2.0 is/was, Web 3.0 will be a game-changing phenomenon and I think we're already starting to see it emerge. Time to split the page. 72.39.34.238 (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)(@banana29, threadbarebeauty.wordpress.com)

Agreed: Web3.0 is about to have a major breakthrough. There is a corporation that is emerging that will be utilizing the meaning of web 3.0, and probably redefining parts and expanding on others. Split!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.173.128 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed: The basic premise is not a new idea, it is a natural evolution of systems theory. Refer to "co-emergence", the "enactivist perspective" related to the creation of knowledge/cognition. The immersion of the human actor in the system/environment is recognized as a separate perspective in learning theory. This parallels Fenwick / Perspectives on Cognition, 2000, p.261 "Humans are [...] completely interconnected with the systems in which they act." Adult Education Quarterly, Vol.50 no.4 Aug 2000 243-272 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.145.214.188 (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed: Web 3.0 is a paradigm in the World Wide Web. I saw an excellent abstract in Zurich, 4uGroup AG operates JANZZ. Within the "Pressekit" you find the document Hintergrundinformationen. There is a Knol article to Web 3.0. An other emerging project seems to be Knowledge Manufactory.--Urs.Waefler (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC

An RFC of the above topic has been suggested by Ruud. The subject of the RFC is "Web 3.0 is distinguishable enough from Web 2.0 that it now deserves its own article". Please Agree or Disagree — Supuhstar * § 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree currently. The article doesn't seem to have enough content to stand alone. If it were substantially expanded with quality material, I could see creating a new page. I recommend waiting for new sources and refactor. Gsonnenf (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree: I am pretty puzzled with this RfC, as I see no Web 3.0 IRL, and no indication that we already know what it would look like. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree As I stated at Talk:Web 3.0: "The section "Web 3.0" currently is quite decently written and sourced, but that there is a great chance of it quickly spiralling back into the pile of junk it used to be as a stand-alone article if split off again." —Ruud 11:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree A standalone article would rapidly drift into WP:CRYSTAL, i.e. vague speculation. If you don't know what Web 3.0 is, how can you write an article on it? --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree No clear definition.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs

A close run thing, but the nays have it. Split tag removed. A BOT removed the RFC, is there anything else needed to close this off? Op47 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Web 2.0 in education

This section doesn't present, I think, a balanced look at modern web technologies and uses (what has been [mis-]labeled as Web 2.0) in education. There is almost no discussion or presentation of research or expert opinion that doesn't promote it. For example, regard this:

One of the biggest shifts that Will Richardson points out ... is the fact that education must be not only socially but collaboratively constructed.

That's his opinion (and that's fine) but where's the presentation of people who don't agree? I find it hard to believe that there aren't any such people. Indeed, there was an episode of Frontline that showed contemporary (2010) college students at MIT that could write paragraphs just fine, but couldn't put together a whole essay because their long-term focus and attention span was stunted due to modern, (semi-)ubiquitous, mostly social, technology.

Another example: MUST you have social technology to learn symbolic logic?  It might help some people study with their friends, but is Will Richardson really right and my logic class MUST be social to be best? We must condense and balance this section. Metafax1 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole education section is pretty weak. I'm in favor of deletion. Web 2.0 isn't really specific enough for education. E-learning or MOOC are more relevant. Bhny (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

even if "Web 2.0" is not more than a concept, or even just a buzzword, this needs to be documented

I become increasingliy irritated by the fights among Wikipedia contributors about what a page should contain or not, if it should exist or not, and the clear censoring initiatives pushed through by some who are either part of a national wikipedia editors "elite", of which the existence alone is in contradiction with the concept of Wikipedia itself, if they are not part of some industrial lobby. I ended up on this page after I wanted to know what this Web 2.0 expression was sall about, but I found out rather by reading this "noisy" discussion page than by reading the actual wikipedia page itself.

This happens more and more often when I read pages about subjects that not everyone agrees about, and some lobbies or persons keep deleting, editing, writing into pages that were fine as they were - but not for everyone, as it seems.

Slightly off-topic, but a general statement for Wikipedia pages suffering the same fate: It will be the beginning of the end of Wikipedia, if diverting opinions cannot exist on the same Wikipedia page without one of the two being thrown off again and again. To me, Wikipedia is the shining exemple of what the Internet should be, since it's very first days: a cumulation of humanity's knowledge, freely accessible to everyone. Free speech has to be one of the basic foundations of Wikipedia, otherwise it will be no more than the mirror of what we are supposed to know, to believe, to read.

Johan Prins, France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.223.32 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right, Johan--it's a popular enough term that it has a place here. But the predominant consensus that it's a buzzword is not "lobbying". Those of us with IT and web development experience simply know it's fictional. Perhaps the demonstration of this just needs to clarified (and the article condensed for brevity and sanity).Metafax1 (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Characteristics

This article is somewhat turstworthy, quite biased, somewhat complete, quite well-written,and quite accurate. The characteristics section can be improved — Preceding unsigned comment added by DegapudiSudhipti (talk • contribs) 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

One thing i do think can be improved is the overall layout of the content as it seems messy and confusing to me --Turbo₅₆₆ ^talk 08:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC) peole are weird — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.90.80.127 (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Example

Web 2.0 technologies - another example by Elizabeth Brewer - Appalachian State University 68.119.47.79 (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Ebrewer93

Fixing missing content/links

I feel like we should add some content to this page, and perhaps fix some missing internal links for reasons I assure you are too complex and arcane to elucidate at this moment. Nomdepomme2 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I will fully review the article to identify missing internal links. LCRubin (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I will endeavor to add information about Flock to the Characteristics section, and perhaps will also elaborate upon the key features in a way that is informative. Nomdepomme2 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, Nomdepomme2. Something else should be said about Flock. Even though it is linked to a detailed article, it should be briefly explained in the context of the article. I think the Characteristics section needs to be elaborated upon some more, especially the key features. I will delve into the references and find some informative tidbits to add to this section that will enhance the overall attractiveness of this article. LCRubin (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

We can use the already referenced article to explain each of the key features. Here are the features from the article:

1. Folksonomy (should be linked to wiki page)- free classification of information; allows users to collectively classify and find information (i.e. Tagging [should be linked to Tag (metadata) wiki page])

2. Rich User Experience- dynamic content and responsive to user input

3. User as a Contributor- information flows two ways between site owner and site user by means of evaluation, review and commenting

4. Long Tail (should be linked to wiki page)- profit is realized through monthly service subscriptions more than one-time purchases of goods over the network

5. User Participation- users add content for others to see (i.e. Crowdsourcing [should be linked to wiki page])

6. Basic Trust- contributions are available for the world to use, reuse, or re-purpose

7. Dispersion- content delivery uses multiple channels LCRubin (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the next thing someone could do is expand the information in the Concepts section. Nomdepomme2 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you think should be added to the Concepts section? LCRubin (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I like what you have done. It is good to add links. It makes the whole of wikipedia more connected.Nomdepomme2 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the content I added in October, I added a line to the Characteristics section and some information about the Web 2.0 technology HTML 5 to the Technology section. I think that our work here has improved the quality of this article in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia and Wikipedians everywhere.Nomdepomme2 (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Great job. I elaborated upon some of the key features a bit more using the already cited reference; it is now more complete and really illustrates what Web 2.0 is all about. I think I got all of the missing links fixed, and I also did some proofreading and made some minor grammatical revisions. I think we've left this article in pretty good shape...definitely better than it was before. Thanks for your help Nomdepomme2! LCRubin (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Are web forums and groups part of the stuff that is called Web 2.0?

I don't see web forums and groups (e.g. Google Groups, Yahoo Groups, StackExchange groups, various 'boards', 'mailing lists', and the many thousands of independently-moderated registered-user discussion sites) mentioned anywhere in this article. Is that because they've been overlooked, are called something else, or are not part of what is thought of as Web 2.0? Stringybark (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Google Groups is an interface to Usenet, which started in the 1980s. Likewise mailing lists. Web forums have been around for as long as the web has. Web 2.0 mainly means a Javascript driven interface, AJAX, and sites selling your demographics instead of just showing you ads.

Cleanup

I'm tearing through and doing some major removals. This article is extremely bloated and could be better titled "The development of the Internet" or "Digital humanities". Web 2.0 is just a buzzword and (less scathingly) a perspective on the Web. Therefore, there is little encyclopedic content to be had, and this article should be short.

If anyone's mad, I suggest relocating this stuff elsewhere. Some could go on other Wikipedia pages. The rest would look good on your personal website or blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risc64 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

web 1.0 split

split web 1.0 into seperate article with more detailed information about it with pictures, citations to aid readers in getting an idea of the look and feel of the old lightweight internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:3010:BFFA:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation

Hi , I may have found the citation for the line "Writing when Palm Inc. was introducing its first Web-capable personal digital assistant, supporting Web access with WAP, DiNucci saw the Web "fragmenting" into a future that extended beyond the browser/PC combination it was identified with. She focused on how the basic information structure and hyperlinking mechanism introduced by HTTP would be used by a variety of devices and platforms. As such, her use of the "2.0" designation refers to a next version of the Web that does not directly relate to the term's current use.[citation needed]"

It is from this paper in think "Lu, C. H. E. N. "Management & Engineering.". How do i go about this edit. I am new here . Pls advice.

Aishwarya889 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Usability/Interactivity"

Under "Concepts," the article currently states" "Rich Internet application (RIA) — defines the experience brought from desktop to browser, whether it is "rich" from a graphical point of view or a usability/interactivity or features point of view." But usability and interactivity aren't the same thing. Depending on users' accessibility needs, extra graphics, animation, interactivity, and features may cut into usability or cut it off entirely. Which leads to tools such as Firefox's Reader View to try to cut all the other things to restore usability. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"Common Gateway Interface (CGI) instead of a web application"

I can't quite make out what this is trying to say. It seems to be claiming that being a "web application" is somehow contrasted with being implemented with CGI. Maybe the precise definition of a "web application" isn't clear cut, but surely it's independent of whether it's implemented with CGI. Furthermore, referring to Perl on the RHS of the comparison is puzzling, given that it seems to be the traditional language of choice for CGI. I make out that CGI is also sometimes used internally to run PHP. In any case, the underlying web server technology, the programming languages used and whether what's been created constitutes a "web application" seem to be fundamentally independent of each other, and as such I say this bullet point needs a rewrite. Does anyone fancy a stab at it? — Smjg (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Have people never heard of usenet or forums?

Forums existed before web 2.0 timeframe. 67.71.84.17 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@67.71.84.17: So what? Furthermore, Usenet is a completely separate system from the WWW, so is irrelevant here. — Smjg (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It was a good point, because web forums were purely www based and in "1.0". It's pretty obvious all those notations about the "version of the web" are mostly marketing jargon created and used by firms trying to sell to people not that interested in the details of the technology. fs 19:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Usenet newsgroups are not the "Web" at all. They pre-date the World Wide Web by some years. Equinox ◑ 15:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BL33701 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by BL33701 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

When did Web 2.0 end?

Nobody has seriously used the term for years, and its trappings (like the eternal "beta" badges on sites) are mostly gone. It would be interesting to see the historical dates of usage. Equinox ◑ 15:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to me that these terms are mostly meaningless, used mainly by firms to promote their tech as "latest". It became ludicrous when people hijacked the term "web 3" to change category entirely and and talk about financial services lol.. fs 08:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)