Talk:Web 2.0/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Introduction

"Perhaps web content will become less under the control of specialised, so-called web designers and closer to Tim Berners-Lee's original concept of the web as a democratic, personal, and DIY medium of communication. Content is less likely to flow through email and more likely to be posted on an attractive webpage and distributed by RSS."

Does speculation on what may happen belong here, just wondering? Sontra 08:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made it less speculative, less POV and shorter, but kept TBL reference as it shows Web 2.0 is the fulfilment of a vision for the Web. Stephen B Streater 08:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Supportive

I don't understand why GraemeL keeps deleting the following 2 links from the supportive category.

1) Geek 2.0: It has the best definition of Web 2.0 I've come across, and it is also a very supportive site of Web 2.0. I'm not sure how this can be made to fit into the current article: "On April 1st, 2004, Google launched GMail, which went on to ignite the whole Web 2.0 / AJAX revolution which we are witnessing right now. There is no agreed definition of Web 2.0. I like to think of it as the re-birth or second-coming of the web. The Web 2.0 websites are more like web applications, and have a rich, highly interactive and generally well designed user interface. They could also be using web services offered by other sites (for eg, Google Maps, Flickr photo web service, etc). Syndication and community are also associated with a site being Web 2.0. AJAX is the technical term which is responsible for the increased interactiveness of Web 2.0 websites. But the fundamentals remain the same - what's under the hood of a Web 2.0 application is as important as it was a few years ago."

2) The State of Web 2.0: This was written recently by Dion Hinchcliffe, who is the editor-in-chief of the Web 2.0 Journal. It also has a very good explanation of Web 2.0, alongwith nice charts and diagrams. It also has links to many other useful definitions of Web 2.0


04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The first one is nothing but blog spam. The second one is also a blog and they are rearly good sources of information. Link to an article of his in the journal, not a blog which is an unreliable source of information, not under the overview of an editorial team. --GraemeL (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Note on Web 2.0 Service Mark

'Web 2.0' is a USPTO Service Mark( Serial Number 78322306 ). I have added this information three times. It was erased twice, this information is highly relevant. Please stop deleting this information. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjzeidner (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure whether this service mark assertion issue has any relevance to the phenomenon of Web 2.0, which is all this article is about. In any case it shouldn't occupy such prominent position as the introductory paragraph. If has grown to be a service mark dispute between the service mark owner and, say, O'Reilly's, then perhaps we can add a subsequent section to cover this dispute, but a google search reveals that there's absolutely no noice on this whatsoever as of this time. --Pkchan 07:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No one knows about it because CMP Media keeps erasing all the comments. I would probably think that the ownership issues associated with the term 'Web 2.0' might be of interest to groups who are utilizing this term. Who cares if google search reveals nothing, try a USPTO search. And get a real job :) --Jjzeidner 08:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
another note, to the parties who are funding the smear campaign here; youre corny marketing campaign is not going to work anyway, so dont bother... if you keep changing it or deleting it everyone will know what you are up to anyway. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjzeidner (talk • contribs) .
If it is the case that CMP intended to keep a low profile of their service mark "ownership" then perhaps we should wait till they assert their right before re-adding this detail to this article. Wikipedia is not the place to report every trademark/service mark ownership in the world. --Pkchan 11:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC
I did manage to verify the USPTO claim, and included their page as a reference - which unfortunately expired, but the edit history will help show you how to verify it. In the UK I think that you can lose a trademark if you don't enforce it, but perhaps that is not the case in the US. Stephen B Streater 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Stephen, as you probably know the USPTO is completely out of hand here in the US. The diligence with which visibly unaffiliated parties wish to delete an item of information that is not only relevant, but perhaps is the only definitively informative fact on this entire page, shows to what level our trademark and patent system are being exploited by various groups both domestic and international. I am starting to think that there are people who specialize in 'Wikipedia Smear PR', given the level of sophistication with which this small iota of highly relevant information was censored.--Jjzeidner 19:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No I dont think so, PKChan. People need to know it is a Service Mark Before CMP Media LLC. decides that they are going to exercise their rights. I believe they are planning on everyone adopting the term before they can turn it into a moneymaker. I work in this field and I am absolutely fed up with outlandish tactics like this.--Jjzeidner 19:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
As a service for verifying this: go to http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=re83ch.1.1 and type "Web 2.0" or the above filing number as search term. The TM is for the following fields:
Arranging and conducting live events, namely, trade shows, expositions and business conferences in various fields, namely, computers, communications, and information technology
and
Organizing and conducting educational conferences, tutorials and workshops in the fields of computers, communication and information technology
If that info is relevant for the article, I leave up for others to decide.
--S.K. 18:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks S.K., If we leave it up to others to decide then CMP Media will decide to erase it. It is obviously relevant and it is verified. This problem is an indication of deeper problems with Wikipedia, and these problems will persist. I do believe that there are professional groups who specialize in doctoring these pages. If it continues, Wikipedia will be of no value whatsoever. (oh and BTW- I believe that they link you supplied above expires as well. )--Jjzeidner 19:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia will survive. And it's not agents of CMP media deleting your pet section. --Artw 19:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
yes it will survive, but not for the reason it was popular in the first place... and so it goes. Anyway you have got to be kidding me if you claim that a definitive reference to the legal status of the term 'Web 2.0' amidst subjective panderings of technological opinions and name dropping, is wholly irrelavant. The first deletion had the comment: "corrected spelling mistake". Its not my pet section, this article is UBM's pet section. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjzeidner (talk • contribs) .
I don't believe either that CMP agents are out there to systematically remove this information, but it annoys me, that the USPTO website keeps this session info even when you're only going to the search page. ;-) Oh well. So here is the longer description for how to verify this, without implying anything regarding the inclusion of this information:
--S.K. 19:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


This information may be relevant and of use to someone, but it sure as hell does not belong in the summary (if anything it's a minor footnote - unless an unenforced service mark conveys some awesome powers I was previously unaware of) and I will continue to delete it there each time I see it. --Artw 20:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be time to revisit this... CMP is now taking legal action --4.156.195.34 20:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on revisiting. Once it's been the basis of a publicized legal action, I would argue that raises the relevance of the information. Seth Finkelstein 14:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been added to the article in a nice, non hysterical way. Good work all. --Artw 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Violations of 3RR

Editors of this page are reminded that Wikipedia has a hard-and-fast three-revert rule. One should not make the same addition or deletion three times within 24 hours. I have placed a note on the Administrators' noticeboard for his five reverts (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#.5B.5BUser:Jjzeidner.5D.5D), but the rule applies to all editors. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Violations of Common Sense

Well Wikipedians, It would appear that the 'consensus' would rather have a littering of random marketing tidbits than useful information regarding the legal status of the term Web 2.0. Wikipedia is a joke. Who other than someone employed( possibly indirectly ) by invested parties, would diligently want to subtract a highly relevant iota of information regarding the term 'web 2.0'? This indicates some more serious problems with the veracity of Wikipedia. As has been noted by many, Wikipedia is in the state of decay. Given what has transpired here, I am now unable to trust any data I find on this site. It appears that someone is trying to get the term 'web 2.0' to be associated with participation and collaboration, so they can sell that understanding to those who would want to exploit it. Wikipedia is worthless, Web 2.0 is worthless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjzeidner (talk • contribs) .

I agree that Web 2.0 is a joke. There is no clear definition of "Web 2.0." It came from a marketing brainstorming session, for goodness sake! There is worth in discussing AJAX (though it really is old technology). There is definitely mileage in DHTML (although it is just a "wrapper" term for other technologies). There is NO need for the blanket term "Web 2.0." This article should make it more clear that "Web 2.0" is merely a hype-infested buzzword. --Beachy 23:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree, but it's utterly imaterial to wikipedia: the term exists, no matter how vague or stupid it is, and this page should describe it as it is commonly used. --Artw 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get emotionaly involved in the article

I've put in my compromise solution.

  • Minimalist
  • Supports existing text as a reference
  • Available should anyone study the subject in detail

WP is not here to crush opponents. Stephen B Streater 20:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that the sentence "The term may include blogs and wikis." is more important than 'Web 2.0 is a regsitered service mark of CMP Media LLC.' You people are pathetic.--Jjzeidner 23:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the term Web 2.0, which in common usage frequently includes blogs and wikis, and so that is an appropriate peice of text for the summary. The trademark thing at present seems like a mere historical footnote. You could try constructing a case that the trademark IS an important peice of information, but your current style of argument really isn't helping the case. --Artw 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the term Web 2.0, which is commonly attributed to a wide variety of technologies and methodologies, none of which can be definitively verified or ascertained outside of a general and assumed consensus and authority. What is important, is that the term Web 2.0 is a form of property recognized in the United States and its success and proliferation is due in part to the investment in the development of that property by parties related to or consisting of CMP Media LLC. The private and personal meanings that each of us attribute to this term will be a function of both promotional investments and activity in a court of law by said party CMP Media LLC. The aformentioned facts are both relevant and pertinent to parties that seek to either utilize or understand the usage of the term Web 2.0. The audience of this article can be said to include these parties. The inclusion of the statement 'Web 2.0 is a registered service mark of CMP Media LLC' does not detract from the essence and meaning of the article, ambiguates the message and informational content of said article, nor is partial to the opinon of any named party. It is a very plain and simple indication of a legal fact that pertains directly to the said subject of this article. In the spirit of truth and the search for objective knowledge I claim that this fact should be part of the introductory message, and that there is no sufficient authority present here who offers an adequate reason to disclude it. In adherence to the spirit of Wikipedia I claim that you have absolutely no authority to disclude this plainly stated, sourced, and highly pertinent fact from the introductory message of this article. I also claim that the fine print option is an insufficient comprimise that is designed to de-emphasize information that is of interest to casual readers and serious researchers alike.--Jjzeidner 23:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this already included as the footnote? --66.10.35.231 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This is what is referred to as fine print option. There is absolutely no reason why this very pertinent information should be relegated to the 'footnotes' section. Whose to say any of these relatively spurious facts mentioned in the introduction section deserve to stay? No one owns this page. Who ultimately decides? If we are using the 3RR rule, that is easily foiled by the nature of the anoymous login, because when someone adds a fact that an organized and deliberate party wishes to delete, they simply use several logins to do so until the 3RR rule comes into play. There is no way to take an adequate census of who is opposed or who is in favor, because there is no correspondence between number of Wikipedia logins and concerned parties. Furthermore there is no correspondence between those parties who are financially motivated and those who are motivated by knowledge. It is this latter motivation which accounts for the success of Wikipedia, and without it, the value of this site would be nil.--Jjzeidner 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
In honor of yet another idiotic and stupid attempt to censor important information for the web development community i have composed another poem.
Ode To Wikipedia
Some think that the truth is of value
For the truth bring'th wealth
But soon we are to learn,
That the world is invested in lies.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjzeidner (talk • contribs) . [1]
Regarding anonymous logins, administrators have the capability to track edits by IP addresses, and abuse of this can lead to further enforcement against a user. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Please don't threaten disruption, rather, try to seek a consensus with your fellow editors, which may require compromise. Ultimately Wikipedia has other methods available for seeking a harmonious conclusion to editing disputes including mediation and arbitration; we certain are not a democracy. Wikipedia depends on all editors exercising the assumption of good faith on the part of other editors. --Dhartung | Talk 02:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally I'm perfectly happy to see it there. --Artw 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Then why not leave it there, ArtW? --Jjzeidner 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Um, I have? I think maybe you need to calm down a little --Artw 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I am calm. So calm I decided to write a haiku...
Wikipedia has much credibility
In eyes of blind masses
time to cash in
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjzeidner (talk • contribs) . [2]
See also Wikipedia:Wikilove, perhaps. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Well, I don't see any serious rebuttals to my argument that this small piece of information should be included in the introductory message...--Jjzeidner 20:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote against it's inclusion: It doesn't seem all that important a factoid (Your arguments that it is important sue to some kind of plot on the part of CMP Media is unsupported and seems to go against the common understanding of how service marks actually work). Also it's already represented as a footnote. At most I'd bring it out of footnotes and put it in some section other than overview. --Artw 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please define your use of the term 'Plot' --Jjzeidner 21:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I am also against putting the reference at the intro. This issue is not central to the Web 2.0 phenomenon at all. Imagine the fuss we will get if we put up all relevant service marks, trademarks, patents &c. at the intro of, say, World Wide Web. --Pkchan 00:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
No one is suggesting making some kind of general rule for the publication of trademarks. What is being suggested is that this this highly pertinent fact be clearly indicated in the article.
Perhaps you should define and defend pertinence, instead of merely asserting it. Is there an outside citation that the trademark is being enforced, or is preventing others from using the term? --Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the issues here is WP:V. The trademark existence can be (and has been) verified, so this can be included. The allegations of a plot look like WP:OR, which is not allowed. If anyone can find a reference from a reputable publication supporting a plot, we can mention it in the article. In the absence of any verifiable plot, a footnote is the best place for the trademark. After all, WP is not supposed to contain every true fact, only some independently verifiable ones. Stephen B Streater 08:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable Claims?

There is some text that I find to be problematic for it's unqualified optimism:

Some websites that potentially sit under the Web 2.0 umbrella have created new online social networks amongst the general public. Some of the websites run social software where people work together. Other websites reproduce several individuals' RSS feeds on one page. Other ones provide deeplinking between individual websites.
The syndication and messaging capabilities of Web 2.0 have created, to a greater or lesser degree, a tightly-woven social fabric among individuals that would have formerly been impossible. Arguably, the nature of web-based communities has changed in recent months and years. The meaning of these 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.

Here are some of my objections:

  1. I changed unarguably to arguably because I think that there is some debate about how much the nature of web-based communities have changed, at least among people who study this sort of thing.
  2. The issue of amateur/professional goes to Blumenthal v. Drudge late '90s, and even discussions about the authority of early web pages and even to discussions on pre-web CMC modes.
  3. "tightly-woven social fabric among individuals that would have formally been impossible." Ouch. From what I can tell, this is an open question in Social Network analysis theory. It's also not clear as to what is being judged as "formerly impossible."
    • If the claim being made here is just that there are novel strong social networks constructed through RSS hyperlinking, it's trivial.
    • If the claim being made here is that RSS and web messaging networks are qualitatively a different beast from the rather rich networks developed from previous CMC modes, it really needs to be qualified with a "belief" or "research suggests" phrase.

My personal bias is that the claims of Web 2.0 being a radically new form of social networking and CMC are frequently dramatically overstated. But that's just my bias. And I also might be overshooting the audience a bit. --Kirkjobsluder 03:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The claims made for "Web 2.0" are clearly horseshit. However they remain the claims made for Web 2.0 and should remain in the article. Critisms of the term, making very similar points to yours, are also included in the article. --Artw 06:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Since I started editing a few months back, the Web 2.0 article has become more and more realistic, with hyperbola increasingly downgraded or removed. I see this process continuing until Web 2.0 is just another of hundreds of ideas incorporated into the Web - much as Web Applications is now. Stephen B Streater 08:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Normally, a term that wants to be everything is naturally weeded out for its uselessness, but being that 'Web 2.0' is someone's property this is unlikely to happen, as the evolution of 'Web 2.0' is artificial and proctored by its owner( naturally ). In response to the 'plot' charges, let me pose this question... Did 'Dale Dougherty' use the term 'Web 2.0' without knowledge that it was a service mark? or was this some kind of statistical anomaly? Is it a further coincidence that Dougherty's web site WebReview.com was bought by CMP Media? [[3]]? Must be pure coincidence... I think half of the people inputting to this conversation wish the stupidity to continue, the other have are actually stupid. The other small majority are complete losers who like to use the term 'conspiracy theory'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjzeidner (talk • contribs) .
ArtW; 'Unverifiable' claims? Are you a law-school drop out or something? I provided a link to the CMP Media Web Site Testifying To This Information. What more could I possibly provide as proof? ArtW; you clearly have some kind of agenda here. Who are you?--Jjzeidner 01:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

blogspam

In my opinion the link to http://web2dot5.blogspot.com/2005/12/web-20-asps-emperors-new-new-clothes.html is blogspam. It is not notable and should be removed. It is currently found in the following section:

Critics refer to these trends as ASP 1.1, and point out that numerous similar web-based application services, or ASPs, appeared during the Dot-com bubble, and then vanished, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers.

I actually think the entire text above should be removed. Or at least rewritten.

--Sleepyhead 14:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to edit it out too. Not directly talking about Web 2.0. Stephen B Streater 16:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a widely noted point that a large number of "web 2.0" companies have reintroduced failed concepts from web 1.0. This article points this out in pretty clear terms, and coins the critical term "ASP 1.1". Offering counterpoint and references to history is part of implementing Wikipedia:NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.156.78.216 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC).
If it is widely noted then please include a better reference than a non-notable blog post. Besides, ASP has nothing to do with Web 2.0 - SaaS is a different story though. --Sleepyhead 14:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
A blog post can indeed be a notable ref. It is blog comments that are not notable. You don't appear to have much support on this, and you seem focused on the SaaS/ASP POV. There are many, many new app services with the same biz model and features as Intranets.com --4.156.78.67 15:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue here is not about NPOV but about Notability. A blog with only 38 links from 26 sites (per Technorati can't really be said to be a notable blog for linking. See WP:EL for the applicable guideline here. --Pkchan 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It's about both. And this blog sometimes appears on techmeme, which may be a better measure of notability, since Technorati considers all links as equal --4.156.78.67 16:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
61 google results does not make it notable. Besides, even if the blog is somewhat notable that doesn't mean the post is relevant or notable enough to be linked to from a wikipedia article. I am not very found of the "web 2.0" term and welcome objectivity in all articles. Critisicm of web 2.0 is indeed needed in this article but I do not think that particular reference is notable or useful in this article. --Sleepyhead 17:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I reverted too many times; Sleepyhead had axed it without following up the previous discussion, and a bot reverted me when the summary read only "revert" --4.156.78.67 18:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
That's 61 results at techmeme.com alone! I am not debating apps like salesforce, but rather sites designed to mimic desktop apps. The blog offers a nice critique, and the blog itself is well referenced. Suppose we drop use of 'ASP 1.1' and offer the link as a ref for 'Critics'? --4.156.78.67 17:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, techmeme is not a very notable source either. Your search was for "web 2.5" - it is not just that specific blog that use that term. Mimicing desktop apps is not a core part of "web 2.0" so I do not see it as very relevant criticism. --Sleepyhead 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking at your contributions it seems that the only edits you have done are related to this link. That can suggest that you are the author of the blog. If that is the case, please remembember that wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion. --Sleepyhead 19:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you'll find much agreement that techmeme is not notable. Virtually all of the hits in that search reference the blog. Writely and similar services have received a lot of web 2.0 buzz, so desktop mimicry is indeed regarded as core to web 2.0. I am the original author of the section in question; the webtop phenomenon is a personal interest. I've also contributed to the trademark issue, and the structure of the article, over a period of months. --4.156.195.111 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (updated)
Can you find a WP:RS for the ASP 1.1 name? Stephen B Streater 22:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I proposed to drop 'ASP 1.1' and use the link as a ref on 'critics'. If there isn't more discussion by later today, I'll try that and we'll go from there. --4.156.195.111 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The link is not notable. If you cannot find a relevant and notable reference that point out the same critisicm then it is obvious that this criticism is not important enough to be incldued in this article. Do not add the link again. I will report you for vandalism if you continue to do so. --Sleepyhead 06:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I have presented reasonable evidence of notability, and made a good faith proposal and edit. There are no grounds to report vandalism. Sleepyhead, on the other hand, has a history of whacking links indescriminately. Let someone else challenge this for a change. --4.156.195.161 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:EL : "Links to normally avoid: 12. Blogs...Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.". #1 The link is a blog. #2 The blog is not very notable. #3 The critisicm the post raises is not covered by other sources. Thus the link should not be included. And you have not made any reasonble evidence of notability. --Sleepyhead 13:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That section of the article is closely related to the blog post, and the blog is high-standard enough to appear in techmeme. Noone else has raised objections. If that remains the case, I will revert later today. --4.156.195.161 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No, if you cannot provide evidence of notability then do not re-add link. Techmeme is far from a respectful resource. It is a collection of news from various sources, including blogs, collected by individuals. Look at the external links in this article: The economist, PCMag, CNet etc. and some blogs - but very notable ones i.e. Nicholas Carr. External links must be relevant, notable and follow the guidelines. This link does not. If you add it again I will report you for vandalism. Also, note that there are no other contributors who are supporting your point of view. --Sleepyhead 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You've made your POV clear. Noone else has objected to my proposal. Stop reverting this and let someone else have a say if you're right. If you report vandalism, you'll just look foolish. It's clearly not. --4.156.195.161 13:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I am acting in accordance to the guidelines. However, if a concensus is made on this talk page to re-add the link then I will not object to that. Btw: can you please register an account instead of making anonymous edits. --Sleepyhead 13:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, this is running into the right margin now, so let me drag it back :) To the anon editor who insists on adding the ASP 1.1 link: your preferred version opens with "Some critics point out that...". If you want to add some credibility to this claim, I would suggest you to put forward at least one more source (a reliable source, hopefully) that mentions the same viewpoint and attributes that to that blog post or its author (and, as pointed out by Sleepyhead, techmeme doesn't count because it is merely an aggregator). If the post can't pass even this simple test, then there'll be no doubt it is nn. --Pkchan 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Web 2.0 is an Infomercial payed for by CMP Media

What exactly is the point of discussing the meaning of Web 2.0 when it is clearly nothing more than a stupid multi-level marketing scheme?--Jjzeidner 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


CMP Exercises its rights to Service Mark

CMP media working with O'Reilly media have cease and desisted an Irish Charity for having a web 2.0 day and advertising it as such. Web2.0 2.0 cease and desist

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=153074441&size=l

What is wrong with you people?--68.110.70.158 08:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of trademarked things have articles. For example, Coca-Cola. Stephen B Streater 08:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but there is a general consensus that Coca-Cola is a trademark. No one appears to understand that Web 2.0 is owned by CMP Media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.70.158 (talk • contribs) .
It is only owned by them in the US - a relatively small part of the world - and only for use in a handful of areas. And I added the reference in the article, so anyone reading WP will find it out too. Stephen B Streater 09:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
"This whole farce has demonstrated very clearly that the Web2.0(sm) phenomenon, far from being a real movement with any business value to the community at large, is being operated exclusively for the benefit of its creators and would-be owners." Posted by: Brendan Lawlor at May 26, 2006 01:40 AM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.70.158 (talk • contribs) .

I think we might note the controversy this has caused--4.156.195.80 14:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with various editors that the recent litigation has increased the relevance of the Service Mark. My original compromise of a small footnote is I now believe inadequate. I support a small comment noting the recent litigation and the result, obviously meeting WP:CITE and WP:RS. Stephen B Streater 16:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Update. All the latest changes look reasonable. Some USPTO pages expire, so this link should be checked in a bit. Stephen B Streater 16:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
More on this from O'Reily. --Artw 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I notice that a user from here has been linking back to this page in the comments, presumably in order to fuel some kind of petty flame war. That's poor form and definate trollish activity. --Artw 17:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
No, ArtW Im not trying to start some petty flame war. You were wrong. Plain and simple. I stated the fact that the service mark was relevant prior to this event taking place. I was diligent and persistent in my view. Turns out I was totally on point. Grow up and admit your stupidity. --Jjzeidner 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Sigh... I am right in that your attempt to edit the summary bas bad and inapropriate, so i reverted it and attempted to get you to explain yourself. That you failed to do so in any kind of coherant manner is your own problem. Also if the full extent of CMPs grand conspiracy is that they can demand people don't use the phrase "Web 2.0" in conference names then It doesn't really seem very impressive to me.
BTW I assume 208.223.206.230 is you? Childish. Very childish. --Artw 19:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't know anything about it, Art. Who appointed you judge? Given your intelligence level, I doubt youve ever been appointed to any decision making position. Instead you just wonk about trendy buzzwords on the internet and claim to have authority over them. Pathetic. People like you cause situations like this. When did 'PR' become a euphamism for 'bullsh!t'? --Jjzeidner 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW Art, for someone who specializes in 'Wikipedia Smear PR' its surprising that you do not check your User:Talk page. Have a super day. --Jjzeidner 19:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
More comments from O'Reilly - This time from Sara Winge, their VP of communications. Reading between the lines it sounds like they've decided it's better PR to allow IT@Cork to use that title than not to. Possibly we should change the article to reflect that, though it sounds like as a rule they'll still be chancing anyone who uses "Web 2.0" in a conference title. --Artw 18:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The information on the existing case should be updated, but it is more significant that they intend to enforce their rights for conferences etc. in general rather than not enforce in in this one off case. However, I don't see this affecting my company or its Web 2.0 applications or marketing (which are at broadcast industry shows, not Web 2.0 shows), so I don't see this as of critical importance to Web 2.0 in general at this time. Stephen B Streater 19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Statement from Tim O'Reilly --Artw 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A little less personal invective please. We have WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CITE and WP:V to ensure everyone gets a say and the truth comes out in due course. It was good of Jjzeidner to raise the issue. The service mark has been in the article since then. Now CMP Media are actively pursuing the mark, its profile has been raised and it now has its own section. It is good timing on Jjzeidner's part that after a few years of inactivity, he should alert us to this issue shortly before it happens, but Wikipedia is here to document what has happened, not what might happen. Stephen B Streater 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Dale Dougherty, CMP Media and other Scandals

Thanks S. Streater. I think I deserve the credit here to be honest. I had pointed this fact out months ago on the Phoenix Refresh google group. It would appear that the public is still living the PR Cloud though. Some believe that O'Reilly or some other party has yet to register the trademark. It should be made clear that this service mark was registerd in 2003. Tim O'Reilly has yet to make a public statement as to whether he was aware of the fact that Web 2.0 was CMP's property. I can't make any definitive statements, but I do believe he was aware of this all along. Secondly the business relationship between concerned parties was entirely explicit in some cases. Here is the chronology of events:

1) ~2001, CMP Media LLC. purchases Dale Dougherty's web site WebReview.com
2) ~2003, CMP Media LLC. registers 'Web 2.0' service mark
3) ~2003, Dale Dougherty reportadly uses Web 2.0 in a 'brainstorming session' .note: this is PR baloney, a more accurate description is
3.a) Dale Dougherty is hired by CMP Media to head up their new marketing campaign called Web 2.0.
4) ~2004> , The Web development community believes Web 2.0 to be an meaningful 'technological movement' and spend a lot of time discussing the meaning of Web 2.0 without knowing that CMP Media actually owns the rights to it. O'Reilly and friends assist them in this activity and exploit their trust with the OSS community.
5) 2006, JJZeidner's mention of the legal facts pertaining to Web 2.0 on Wikipedia are met with confusion and in some cases animosity.
6) 2006, JJZeidner's persistence pays off, CMP and O'Reilly show their true colors and actuate their plan while Tim O'Reilly claims to be on 'vacation'

BTW, ArtW you had better have a really good reason for erasing my last entry. Sorry, being a stooge for CMP Media is not an excuse.--Jjzeidner 22:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly reasonable deletion of cruft to me. And please stop with all the weird accusations and semi-stalkerish activity: I am not and never have been anything to do with CMP Media. I'd never even heard of them before you started bringing it up. --Artw 22:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Art, I have about as much interest in stalking you as I have in stalking a tomato plant. So Art, WHO DO YOU WORK FOR? --Jjzeidner 23:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
JJ, I really do not understand why do you take such a personal stake to this trademark issue and make such shocking personal attacks to Artw on this matter. Yes, credit to you, the trademark registration is a real and, as it transpires over the past couple of days, is an notable aspect of this "Web 2.0" concept. This, however, doesn't justify the trademark issue being promoted to any more prominent position on the article as it has now been placed, at least for the time being -- this concept, a buzzword if you will, is about so many more than this trademark thing. And this doesn't even remotely justify your attacks so far.
I would suggest you to keep a watch on the actual issues at stake about Web 2.0 and, in particular, this trademark controversy which you have shown so much interest in, and act as a constructive contributor to the main namespace rather than stalking on talk pages. In particular, learning about editing and signing your posts properly will be good places to start. Be aware of the policies/guidelines on the 3-revert rule, civility and sockpoppet as well. This way the whole wikipedia will benefit and things can move forward. --Pkchan 04:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Back to the original point. This revert is valid because Dale Dougherty's career profile does not have any direct relationship with Web 2.0. This fact is better presented on Dale's own article at Dale Dougherty. --Pkchan 04:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Trademark

CMP media working with O'Reilly media have cease and desisted an Irish Charity for having a web 2.0 day and advertising it as such. [4] According to the Trademark you can no longer advertise any meeting or class as Web2.0 this makes this term much less than useful.

O'Reilly have confirmed this is their position also and ominously will 'allow' the use of the term Web2.0 'this time' [5]

As this is about the future usefullness of this term I believe it should be at the top not buried in a footnote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.44.229 (talk • contribs) .

Due reference has been added and edited on the article under the Trademark section. Moving it to the summary is unnecessary and inappropriate, bearing in mind Wikipedia is not a news service. --Pkchan 18:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Let's wait for the dust to settle a bit so we can see how significant (or not) this development really is in practice. Stephen B Streater 18:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
"Ominously"? One could say "graciously", although they were a bit clumsy. Under the law they have full right to grant or refuse. Note that the trademark is still only limited to conferences and meetings. Given that events have now allowed, appropriate per our previous discussion, the expansion of the trademark from a footnote to an entire section, you might choose instead to celebrate.
Anyway, I added some text there about the international recognition of trademarks. They don't actually have to register a mark to restrict its use in commerce; the registration just makes it a lot easier. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair dues to Jjzeidner for raising this issue and keeping it in play. And to Artw for remaining calm in the face of abuse. I suppose the use of flickr to present evidence on a WP talk page lends substance to the article.--Shtove 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I will cease and desist on ArtW if he can prove to me that he is not a PR worker. CMP has invested millions in Web 2.0, I would assume that they are working on this article here. I assume that at least someone here is with CMP, at least indirectly. --Jjzeidner 08:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You may be right, but we have a number of editors here. Ironically, the more successful CMP are, the more editors will take part and the more diluted their effect will be. Also, let us not forget, that they have trademarked the name not the concept. Stephen B Streater 09:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Issue raised in the Guardian [6].--Shtove 16:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

ASP 1.1

Anyone can say anything on a blog, whereas reliable sources are less likely to print random rubbish. Do we have any ASP 1.1 critics from reliable sources? If so, this would demonstrate that it is a mainstream criticism worthy of mention. Stephen B Streater 17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

PS "Critics point out" is also weasel words so this will have to be changed anyway. Stephen B Streater 17:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

European trademark

They left that a bit late! I think we were already using the term on our home page by then. Stephen B Streater 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

Isn't it time we arhcive this sucker again? It's getting very long. --Artw 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Pkchan 16:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)