Talk:Web 2.0/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

AJAX Heavy Rich Internet Applications / Web Desktops etc...

I wonder if we should do something about the undue prominance of "Rich Internet Applications" in this article, since most of the commonly cited Web 2.0 success stories are nothing of the kind. Most often when AJAX is used, and it's not always used, it supports a fairly ordinary kind of webpage (see flicker et al) rather than the all singing all dancing interactivity-fest that RIA implies.

Also as far as I can see at this stage the various "Web Desktops" are just toys - very neat examples of client-side programming but hardly part of some kind of web revolution. --Artw 15:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You think that because you haven't yet seen FORscene. But you have good a point - most Web 2.0 applications are more like Google. The article should reflect what has happened, not what we hope might happen. Just bear in mind that some Rich Internet Applications do exist and are Web 2.0. Stephen B Streater 18:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Always makes me chuckle when someone takes an authoritative tone and tells us what "Web 2.0" is ... --Beachy 00:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

FORscene is interesting, though in my mind a little less interesting for being a big java applet that squats in the browser, but it doesn't seem to be very Web 2.0 to me - it's pretty much an interface to a closed system, unless I'm missing something. Artw 22:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - you are missing something. The programmes made on it usually start on video tape and end up on TV, so it's hardly a closed system. And you can upload video over the air from your phone if you want. So not a closed system. It just happens to be able to do everything ;-) Perhaps someone will make that more clear in the article. Stephen B Streater 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

TBH That sounds a lot more like an old-school ASP than Web 2.0. Artw 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(Re-indent) Well, I read O'Reilly paper [1] and it meets almost all criteria laid out there

An attitude, not a technology (I didn't make this one up)
The long tail (runs on PCs / Macs without installation or configuration, so suitable for low volume users)
The perpetual beta (upgades every few days/weeks)
Software that gets better the more people use it (customers determine developments)
Emergent user behaviour not pre determined (new workflows being developed by customers)
Play
Rich user experience
Trust your users (we do this - they are pretty good at what they do)
Small pieces loosely joined (uploading, reviewing, logging, editing, web publishing, mobile upload/viewing, are separate components)
Software above the level of device (PC, Mac, Linux, Mobile phone, Video iPod etc)
Data as the Intel Inside. Web/mobile videos can be shared easily. (To come: existing library will allow sharing of user-generated source videos)

I'd be interested in knowing what you think is missing. Stephen B Streater 06:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not sure this is the p,ace to debate this, but you seem to be stretching the definition on almost everyone of those. Artw 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're being a bit vague. You don't have to discuss it, but I would welcome a discussion. On the FORscene talk page perhaps? Stephen B Streater 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jokes about Web 2.0

Are there any sites with jokes about this idea?--Shtove 21:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't this article make you laugh out loud? --Beachy 19:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I did. I also saw a photo of somone who ruined their Powerbook by laser-etching all those mind map phrases on top. It looks hideous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Planetary (talk • contribs) .

Heh. I have to admit it, that would make me laugh. Artw 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

well.. [2] [3] jon 13:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: [4] Be warned: It's not a pretty sight.--Planetary 08:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

www.uncyclopedia.org is a good place to start your own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.42.205.70 (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

wtf are pointed seals?

Large, colourful I get. I presume "seal" means "seal". But what is "pointed" about them?

I'm guessing they mean those stars and circles in the style of supermarket "BUY ONE, GET ONE FREE" stickers. TBH It's not a visual element i've seen that much of lately. Artw 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I wondered about this too. I think it's what the reference [1] refers to as "round flashes". However, these terms evidently require context and are readily misunderstood. I've submitted an edit which I hope makes the language of the list clearer. Alas, no more seals... Mooncow 00:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

List of websites and blogs

The sections Example Web2.0 Companies and Web2.0 Blogs appears to be invitation to spams (not to mention being a violation of MOS). Does anybody have any idea on how to handle them?

I would suggest that any example website and blog listed on this article should pass the same standard as that for admitting an article into Wikipedia -- that is, any link here should be an internal link to another Wikipedia article, rather than directly to the website/blog concerned. But I am open to any other suggestion of a standard of linking to any example website or blog. Any standard would do in my opinion -- otherwise we may as well simply remove these two sections to pre-empt the predictably numerous and unmaintainable waves of spams. --Pkchan 11:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Judicious use of watch and revert seems to do the trick. Artw 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about something to the line of the hidden notice under Software as a Service#SaaS providers. WP:CORP should provide a good guideline for us to keep or remove links on the aforementioned two sections. --Pkchan 14:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: WP:CORP would be a good guideline only to the Web 2.0 service providers section. For the "Web 2.0 blogs" (heaven knows what on earth this means), WP:WEB should apply. --Pkchan 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph - Clarification of IT Term / Marketing Phrase

In the first paragraph I believe it should be made clear that "Web 2.0" is a marketing phrase, because the article is starting to insinuate that "Web 2.0" is a recognised standard in the development community (which it is clearly not). I propose the following wording:

"The term 'Web 2.0' is a marketing phrase that refers..."

Could we take votes for/against this wording, please --Beachy 19:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Nigelj 20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Trademarks encourage me in this view. Incidentally, a straw poll of hundreds of exhibition attendees showed only industry insiders had heard of the term. Stephen B Streater 22:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am tempted to place a {{fact}} tag on the above :) --Pkchan 10:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The opening sentence as of the current version implies neither a technology standard nor a marketing-specific term; it simply says this term refers to so and so, which I think is a pretty neutral description. I believe we should leave this definition as open as possible, as the meaning of this term keeps on evolving. And the current lead serves this purpose quite well. --Pkchan 10:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As you have admited - the meaning of the term is "evolving" - which gives it even less credence. We need to ensure people don't mistake this for a technical definition (which, by definition, does not evolve). Since we're currently seeing three votes "for" vs. one "against," I believe we've almost reached a concensus. --Beachy 11:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is, we can't yet be sure whether Web 2.0 is a marketing buzzword, a technology phenomenom, or somewhere inbetween. In this case it would be more prudent (and in line with WP:NPOV) not to take any side yet, and do not describe it as either. Which is what the current version has achieved. It is very well that we mention subsequently that some people (with source to support) believe that this is nothing more than a marketing buzzword, which I believe the current version has already incorporated. --Pkchan 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral observers will recognise the obvious fact - that this is a marketing term, which originated in a marketing brainstorming session. It is not a technical term - it's a buzzword that merely bunches together some technical phenomena that already have terms and definitions. It does so to brand conferences. Do you not accept this, Pkchan? --Beachy 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Where it is conceived is irrelevant to what it is (you won't describe Archimedes' principle as a "bathroom theory" in the lead, right? :)). That this term does not have technology content is one point of view, not necessarily the neutral one; you may for instance read the articles list under Web 2.0#Supportive and see how some other people see in this term. --Pkchan 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not delude ourselves here. If a term is conceived in a marketing brainstorming session then its safe to say its a marketing term. And just because a few observers describe a "technical" term on their blogs, it does not then become a recognised technical standard. Perhaps you are new to the world of software development - in which case I will point you towards the article on Internet Standards. --Beachy 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps it is also safe to say Java is a coffee shop gimmick :). Back to the point: perhaps you would find it fruitful to take a look at WP:NPOV and learn how to balance different points of view here. --Pkchan 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrite --Beachy 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree as per Pkchan. Artw 15:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also in context this is basically a sneaky dismissal of the term, and therefore would introduce an unwelcome element of POV right in the first sentence. I'd sooner see the case for the use of the term weighed in a more balanced way later in the article. Artw 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a dismissal at all! Marketing is a really important part of business practice and deserves full respect. It's just that in this case the marketeers have chosen a phrase that looks and sounds like a technical term, which it actually isn't. They have every right to do that, but I think that it's really important that we set the (technical) record straight, right up front in case the casual reader is at all confused (and hence is looking it up in an encyclopedia ;-). Saying that the meaning of the term 'is evolving' doesn't help, as it'll not evolve into a truly technical re-release of the entire WWW code-base. Not any time soon anyway. --Nigelj 17:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the term is a Service mark - and the article on SM states that the purpose of an SM is for advertising a service. It would be contradictory not to describe it as a marketing term.--Shtove 20:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

....and if the Service mark tells us that then it's incredible redundant to modify the first sentance to include it.

Besides, in the context of the O'Reily coining the phrase it isn't a marketing term: It's a catch-all phrase used to describe a particular genre of website. 00:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not redundant when the reader - like me - doesn't know what a service mark is.--Shtove 14:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead

The lead of the article now incorporates a quote from John Dvorak of PC Magazine. I removed it and delegate it to a footnote but Beachy seems to disagree. I think that quote does not belong to the lead because it appears to be something definitive, when the truth is that quote only represent one point of view from one critic and is far from representative. What do other editors here think about this? --Pkchan 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you favour the first paragraph defining "Web 2.0" as if it is a serious term with real-life, defined applications. You cannot understand that this view must also be balanced with the views of well-respected developers who believe the term is marketing hype. Your outspoken point of view is very obvious here. Beware of allowing your personal opinions and (obviously) copious amounts of spare time to overwhelm what could be a balanced article --Beachy 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

External links

There are two links under the External links section to articles, one by John Dvorak mentioned above and another by Jeffrey Zeldman, which have been quoted in the main body as references and do appear on the References section. According to WP:EL they "should be linked to in a references section, not in external links". I removed them from there but Beachy thinks that's censorship because, incidentally, the two links both fall under the Critical section. What do the other editors here think about this? --Pkchan 20:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Pkchan - I wouldn't mind, but it was YOU that put at least one of those links in the references section, as a duplicate of one of the critical links.. and then you proceeded to remove the critical link. Please do not use such "migration" as a sneaky technique to reduce the number of links shown in the critical section. --Beachy 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

kinda childish, isn't it? the whole article in general, which once upon a time (sometime in Fall 2005) has been valuable, seems to have been reduced to a "like the concept vs. hate the buzzword" kindergarten row. There are a lot of very thoughtful and highly inspiring blog posts, presentations etc. out there that ar not (or not anymore) linked, which are discussing a complex concept that has been labelled "Web 2.0" by the 'zeitgeist', not by the mean Venture Capitalists who are using it of course, exactly because there is something to it. generally the whole process is showing the inner tendency of Wikipedia towards mediocrity when it comes to fresh and exciting subjects. real experts seem to have abandoned this site a long time ago, and the pro/con discussion has died down anyway, being only kept alive here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Lindner (talk • contribs) 12:13, 3 August 2006

Perhaps that's because an encyclopaedia is supposed to report the debate in a neutral way, rather than actually be the debate. Stephen B Streater 09:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO It should actually define the term and only then "rteport the debate". Right now the article is being trashed by people trying to get a sentance trashing the term into every damn paragraph, which makes it horrificly clunky. Artw 00:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

paying external links

I removed a link to an article which you actually have to pay to read. I find these links really annoying. Is there a wikipedia policy on this?Johncmullen1960 08:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It'd be very hard to objectively measure how "popular" the phrase web 2.0 is. It's definately very widely used, as a google search or even a check on the backlinks to this page will confirm, and I'd be happy with a substitution of "popular" to "widely used", though TBH they are practically synonyms.

I totally agree about removing "hugely" BTW. Artw 17:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, "hugely" satisfied my trimming urge. I think it is more popular in web circles than generally. Stephen B Streater 21:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Market drivers of Web 2.0

This section is unreferenced and dubious. The intro says that contrary to people who use this term, things are not changing very much. Then it goes on to catalog things that are changing. Is this supposed to be a revolutionary vs. incrememental distinction, or meant to show how incremental changes drive revolutionary ones? In any case, this needs to be tied to a respectable source; as far as I can tell right now, this is all original research. -- Beland 01:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That first paragraph is terrible, and should go entirely. The bulleted list could probably move to the introduction. Artw 16:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The section is terrifying in terms of comprehensibly. "Underlying fundamentals", "evolutionary shift", "shopping-related activities", "one of the big players", "a completely new thing", "is in the mix" - who writes like this! I don't think they understand what broadband means - it's for computers, not "differnt devices" such as cell phones etc. "New browsers becoming mainstream" is odd - people have always had the latest technology. If people now are more apt to update their software, then that would be worth mentioning (and citing). I've tried to figure out what was being said, and have rephrased. The heading "market drivers" is the same sort of tripe that I removed, but I have nothing better to call it atm. –M^T 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The notion that "The human race has started to apply much of what it learned from the dot-com bubble" is ridiculous; individuals learn and grow during their lifetimes; the same may be true for the human race over a very long timespan, but very little (if anything) changes in the collective aggregate psychological mechanisms that make us [as a race] do what we do. Bubbles have come and gone during history of man, and will continue to do so... Johanps 11:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this section. The points made are obvious, or have little to do with "2.0", or are dubious. Using the internet for trivial things, or using the internet "more" - these have nothing to do with 2.0. The real market driver, I think, is that 2.0 is easier to use, and hence more popular. [5] –M^T 18:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Visual Elements

Reading this article, I thought that the "Visual Elements" section came totally out of the blue. The Web 2.0 term is meaningless to me, but I understand the need for a definition of it if it becomes a widely-used term. However, it seems to me that the contents of the "Visual Elements" section is totally deconnected from the rest of the article. What do gradient backgrounds and diagonal hatches have to do with the (claimed) characteristics of Web 2.0 (collaboration, user interaction, etc...) ?

If someone can see a link, it should be clearly explained in the section what this has to do with the rest. But my opinion is this section is off-topic and should be removed entirely.

Fox McCloud (159.153.144.23 19:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

To anser your question gradient backgrounds and diagonal hatches have very little to do with collaboration, user interaction, etc... Nonetheless they have become heavily associated with Web2.0 and should remain in the article. You're correct that it doesn't make much sense, but that's the fault of the term "Web2.0" rather than the article. Artw 20:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But then maybe this explanation should be somewhere in this section, because the association wasn't obvious at all to me. And although websites that claim to be "Web 2.0" may be using those things, that doesn't imply that those elements are part of, or even related to, "Web 2.0". It would seem more logical to me that there's the fad of Web 2.0, and there's the fad of gradients and whatnot, and they coexist on certain web pages. I'm sure this kind of graphics design is used on pages that are not collaborative, and that some collaborative sites have graphics that don't have any of these traits, so the association seems really dubious to me.

Does any authoritative source on the subject claim that it's part of Web 2.0? Of the 2 provided references for that section, one doesn't mention Web 2.0 but talks about "Current style in web design", and the other one is a satirical page that makes fun of the Web 2.0 fad. So maybe the contents of this section should go in a separate page called "Current style in web design" and the article could link to it by pointing out that Web 2.0 websites tend to employ the styles described there...

Fox McCloud (159.153.144.23 20:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

The sources I have read on Web 2.0 eg the O'Reilly paper refer to fundamental abstract features of Web 2.0. For example consumer generated content, rather than superficial presentation features like shading. I'd like to see some significant sources saying that Web 2.0 includes these features rather than, as 159.153.144.23 posits, that they just happen to coincide in some applications. Stephen B Streater 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Fox on this, but really, the whole article is full of tenuously-linked concepts. If O'Reilly is making a claim for this term, then we should go by their 'definition' and forget all the grassroots hype that surrounds it. --Beachy 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. It is alright for the article to describe what people perceive are the characteristics of Web 2.0 applications, as long as such perception is well sourced. --John Seward 15:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the references used in this section, I'm not sure they are appropriate. Ben Hunt (2006-02-03). Current style in web design. Web Design from Scratch seems ok for the most part, though I can't find any publication info on the site. Rick Turoczy (2005-12-03). Web 2.0 interface design checklist. hypocritical, on the other hand, is clearly a blog, and almost seems satyrical. The content seems believable to me, but I'm no expert on modern content style conventions. I'm going to leave them in, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to defile this page with an {{unreliable}} tag. There have to be better sources than these. Twelvethirteen 18:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I disagree that style has little to do with the technologies of web 2.0. The big shiny buttons and large text are a huge part of the human-machine interaction side of web 2.0. Modern web sites are on average much easier to use and navigate now than they were ten years ago. If we are talking about web 2.0 merely defined as by O'Reilly, then perhaps the user interface side of the modern web should not be included, but since we want to talk about what web 2.0 actually is, I think it is valuable to the article and should be left in.

By most modern accounts, style conventions count as methods, and are thus Technology. Web 2.0 is as much about these technologies as it is about the technologies of social interaction, convergence, remixability, and standardization. Twelvethirteen 18:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Vote to Remove/Keep the Visual Elements Section

Remove -- Web 2.0 is already a mockery of a technical concept, without "designers" getting involved as well --Beachy 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Remove -- it smacks strongly of original research, or at the very least tries to tie in an only marginally-related subject to this article. The whole section is self-contradictory, saying first that "many Web 2.0 websites" use these visual elements, then concludes saying that Web 2.0 is nothing to do with a site's visual style (which is true). ~Matticus ^T_C 12:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Remove as original research and self-contradictory. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Remove for all of the above reasons. -- AmbientArchitecture 03:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep - It's dumb, but peopel associate that stuff with 'Web 2.0'. If it was a neat, well defined term that didn't include dumb stuff like that our job here would be much simpler, but it isn't, and we shouldn't try to impose that on it. Artw 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- The term doesn't actually include visual elements at all, assuming we're to go by the official O'Reilly definition. --Beachy 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  - It's not a technical term term, it's a catchall phrase, and nobody sticks to any "official definition". Artw 05:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    - You said yourself "it's dumb" that some people associate visual elements with Web 2.0. Why, then, should an encyclopedia article include such "dumb" inferences? --07:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      - Because Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. Artw 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- Web 2.0 is not imaginary. Web 2.0 is the change from HTML to XML over HTTP and the use of this combination for IPC. Its visual elements have often been cited as particularly coincident elements of web evolution, think "bobbed haircuts and the beatles".
- Nice pisstake .. it was a pisstake, right? --Beachy 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Remove -- Original research. Xdenizen 04:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture

I see the picture is back. Seems a little silly, but essentially harmless - thoughts? Artw 15:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead - proposed new version

The current version of the lead appears to focus too much on O'Reilly Media's creation and their intention, and does not address sufficiently the question of what it means and how it is used in the wider context in a descriptive manner. In addition, the list of examples cited, ie "social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies", appear outdated and not sufficiently representative of what Web 2.0 stands for. I propose to re-write the paragraph as follows in order to address this and to dilute the "O'Reilly impression", while staying (as I believe) NPOV. All comments are welcome. --Pkchan 09:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The phrase Web 2.0 refers to what is perceived as a second generation of Internet-based services that put emphasis on allowing users to share and collaborate information online in new ways as part of the service in a user-friendly, interactive, and often Ajax-enabled, user interface. The term was coined when O'Reilly Media, in collaboration with MediaLive International, used the phrase as the title for a series of conferences in 2004 and since then it has become a popular, if ill-defined and often criticized, buzzword amongst the technical and marketing communities.

Looks good to me. Artw 14:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks wrong to me. You can't suggest that "Web 2.0 is perceived as a 2nd generation..." because it is only a handful of (imaginative) semi-techies that actually perceive it as such. Secondly, it's complete fallacy to suggest there's anything new about interactive interfaces on the web. Ajax has been around since IE 5.5 for goodness sake! Keep this article real please. --Beachy 13:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have three problems with the lists from "that put emphasis on..." to the end of the first sentence.
- It's hard to read with so many things in lists. Maybe bullet-point them? But bullet-point lists don't make a good opening sentence
- I'm not sure that it is normal English to "collaborate information", maybe "collaborate by sharing information"?
- Then I hit the big problem: I do not believe that people tagging things (Folksonomy - as linked behind the words 'new ways') really amounts to a new way of doing (b) - however you word it - via the internet. People have been 'sharing and collaborating' on the internet since it began, using email, email attachments, ordinary websites, content management systems, revision control systems, document management systems, bulletin boards, addding comments to other people's web pages, writing reviews on Amazon, Dublin Core metadata, Semantic Web, RDF etc etc.
I think it's the same old problem - there is no technical thing that is going to be or has been designed or released that is Web 2.0: it does not refer to a technical re-release of any code-base that 'was' Web 1.0. It is a marketing term that means, "It's been a while since you had your website designed, can we design you a new one, please?" Then a good designer will start to find out what the client needs and will try to use all available, current technologies best to meet these requirements. Just like some other designer did on the previous website for that client. It's just that these days the designer's tool-box may include Ajax, folksonomy and a few other things that, while not that new, a non-technical client may not know much about yet. --Nigelj 19:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The existing lead paragraph is fine without this revision. There are plenty of lists throughout the article for the various definitions of "Web 2.0" - no need to clutter the intro. Let's keep the focus on what "Web 2.0" is - a term that has been engineered for the purposes of marketing, which has been fed into the grassroots community and twisted by the imaginations of "techies" with varying degrees of common sense --Beachy 22:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am encouraged by your feedback. Let me clear it up a bit first: my version is written basically with Paul Graham's article on this topic in my mind. I think that article is neither an undue appraisal nor an unfair dismissal of the term, and I think it would be a good and neutral starting point for me when I re-write the lead.
- According to that article, Web 2.0 can be boiled down into three things: democracy, Ajax, and focus on user. This is how I structure the lead sentence: democracy (ie architecture of participation in Tim O'Reilly's words, and folksonomy in realisation) and user focus in the first part, and better UI powered with Ajax in the second.
- Specific replies as follows:
  - lengthy list: agree, although the current version also features a long list as well. Perhaps we can break down that clause into two, like this:
  ... that put emphasis on allowing users to share and collaborate information online in new ways as part of the service, presented in a user-friendly, interactive, and often Ajax-enabled, user interface.
  - "collaborate information": my wrong. Let's preserve the order in the current version, ie "collaborate and share information".
  - folksonomy: see my point re: democracy and architecture of participation above. I do believe that this is an important feature that distinguish Web 2.0 from the old: a platform, built-in as part of the service, that allows users to actively contribute to the grouping and ranking of contents. You won't have that pre-Web 2.0. Even the readers' ranking at Amazon.com was initially a secondary feature.
  - cluttering the lead: please see if the revised version above would make it better presented. And as I have mentioned above, the original version suffers from the same problem as well.
  - focus on what web 2.0 is: I believe this is what I am doing with the revised version. The current version simply mentions too much of O'Reilly Media, but the term has evolved far beyond their reach and control. And I do believe the revised version does sufficiently address the fact that it has become a buzzword in the marketing sense. --Pkchan 10:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    - PkChan - there simply isn't a distinct Web 1.0 / Web 2.0 distinction amongst websites in the real world. Sites like Amazon have slowly and incrementally seen new features. This is normal, and has been going on much longer than O'Reilly made up the term "Web 2.0" to brand their conferences (and probably sell a few books). It is dangerous to allow a few imaginative semi-techies to concoct supposed "standards" on the web. Please don't be one of them. Leave the lead paragraph describing what "Web 2.0" is - a marketing phrase that became a buzzword in the techy community. --Beachy 12:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      - What I am trying to do through this revision is to diffuse cluttering mentions of O'Reilly Media in the lead, update the somehow outdated list of examples, and to rephrase the description on the affirmative side of the coin according to my re-interpretation of Paul Graham's article. The lead has always mentioned both sides of the coin: what the supporters perceive Web 2.0 to be in one part, and what its critics perceive it to be on the other part. The supporters' side of the coin is here to stay, as the likes of Tim O'Reilly and Paul Graham can't simply be dismissed as "a few imaginative semi-techies". As for the critic's side, ie "a popular, if ill-defined and often criticized, buzzword amongst the technical and marketing communities", I haven't touched a word. What specifically do you see in the proposed new version that you see objectionable? --Pkchan 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
        
        As you have admitted yourself, you are trying to "diffuse" and "dilute" mentions of O'Reilly in the lead paragraph. This is objectionable, for reasons which I have already explained. I don't care if some programmer somewhere believes that Web 2.0 is more than marketing. I don't care if Tim O'Reilly (head of a marketing company who owns the term "Web 2.0") wants it to be a real technical concept. You seem completely confused as to the reality of the situation. I can't imagine why you are so determined to dilute the fact that this is a marketing-term-turned-buzzword. Are you affiliated with O'Reilly? Are you new to the web development community? Do you like to let your imagination go crazy when you look at trademarked terms that resemble technical standards? What's your story, PkChan? --Beachy 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
        
        The term has escaped into the wild long ago, and people are using it in a variety of ways - some of which are pretty nonsensical - often with no knowledge of it;s origins. Wether you like it or not the article should reflect that. Artw 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
        
        Hence we need to educate them that the term was created in a marketing brainstorming session and has no technical basis. Hopefully this will reduce the nonsensical abuse that you mention. Let's keep the lead paragraph as it currently is. There is no need for PkChans 'diffusion' of the hard, cold facts. --Beachy 16:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
        
        This discussion ain't going anywhere if you insist on your own point of view, which is to ignore what a considerable chunk of the community, rightly or wrongly, perceive Web 2.0 to be. Please also bear in mind Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. You may find it fruitful to take a look at assume good faith and WP:NPA as well. --Pkchan 16:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
        
        You're right that this discussion isn't "going anywhere" because it was a non-starter in the first place. Your revision is all about diluting important facts that you don't want to be shown in the lead paragraph, because you believe (or want others to believe) that Web 2.0 is some kind of tangible technical phenomenon. You were talking about people perceiving things "rightly or wrongly" and my answer to that is very straightforward: if people perceive something wrongly then it is clearly the job of the wikipedia to set them straight with the right answer. Wikipedia is meant to be definitive. It's no use at all if it becomes a hotch-potch mixture of speculation, conjecture and imagination, where anyone can come up with a "standard" and start defining it on this site. Don't forget, we're not "ignoring" anyone's point of view - the whole article is full of the various definitions that people have come up with for "Web 2.0." The current lead paragraph even gives a short list of these. The strength of this revision is that it gets straight to the point, and covers the opinion of those who believe in "Web 2.0" and those who don't. --Beachy 18:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, this discussion isn't going anywhere, because I can still repeat exactly what I said at the beginning: "it's the same old problem - there is no technical thing that is going to be or has been designed or released that is Web 2.0: it does not refer to a technical re-release of any code-base that 'was' Web 1.0. It is a marketing term..." That is absolutely true, no matter how much some people's business plan makes them wish it wasn't. That's the most important thing that this article has to get across. Making simple facts like that clear is the very important duty of an encyclopedia. We can talk about the fact that some people want to 'dilute' that information, but we can't do so ourselves. --Nigelj 19:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been out of this discussion so far, but FWIW here are my observations and opinions:

Pkchan has made a well thought out proposal
The talk page discussion is very welcome as I can see where people are coming from
My current view is mostly with Nigelj and Beachy - this is basically a marketing term
I am tempted to agree with Artw that this term has escaped, but in England this is not the case - most people I come across here who know the term are Americans and have read O'Reilly
I have described Web 2.0 to many people, taking my lead from the O'Reilly paper. People are impressed by any combination of the name "Web 2.0" and any bits from the paper - it's a very strong marketing concept
I'm not convinced about Ajax - to me this is an implementation detail which is not that important in the broader sweep of How We Use The Web
In conclusion, I'd say the case for the proposed new lead is not proven, though I have enjoyed the discussion so far

Stephen B Streater 20:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion has been like going in circles. Let me attempt to put across my points from scratch:
1. The current lead needs a rewrite because it has given undue reference to O'Reilly Media. It mentions it twice in the lead -- indeed, at the very beginning -- which doesn't reflect the status quo, that is, the term has gone far beyond what O'Reilly and co. coined it for in 2004 and has become a term that describes something that, unfortunately, may mean different things to different people (but then many terms in non-science domains suffer from the same problem, eg the more "technical" term Ajax). This article is here to, among other things, describe what this something mean to people. In any case this term has evolved far beyond the reach of O'Reilly Media, and two mentions in the lead are simply too much. Please also note that in my proposed version there is still mention that the term was indeed coined by them in 2004.
2. Moreover, the current list of examples, that is "social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies", is by and large outdated. Del.icio.us, YouTube, Flickr and Google Maps all fall outside this list with the exception of perhaps folksonomy, to name but a few of the more "prominent" Web 2.0 websites. That's why I attempted to update the list with reference to Paul Graham's definition.
3. One of the more prominent critisms of my proposed version (per Nigelj and Beachy) is that the current version attempted to dress up Web 2.0 as a technical standard. It doesn't. The proposed version says at the very beginning that the term "refers to what is perceived as a second generation of Internet-based services..." (emphasis added). And no where has the term "technical" appeared in the proposed version.
4. Another criticism is that it is a marketing term. Yes, indeed, and it is reflected in both the current lead and the proposed lead, as thus: "O'Reilly Media, in collaboration with MediaLive International, used the phrase as a title for a series of conferences and since then it has become a popular, if ill-defined and often criticized, buzzword amongst the technical and marketing communities" (with minor re-wording in the proposed lead). If one does not have any problem with the phrasing of the current version, I really can't understand why would one find the proposed version objectionable.
5. Stephen says: "I am tempted to agree with Artw that this term has escaped, but in England this is not the case - most people I come across here who know the term are Americans and have read O'Reilly". Indeed, that's why there's a need to dilute the reference to O'Reilly Media in the lead without prejudice to its meaning.
6. One last point re: prescription and "education". I believe that the purpose of the lead is to summarise the whole article. Here's what WP:LEAD says: "The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and define the terms." The whole article has been written in a nicely balanced manner with describing the term mean to those who believe the term means something, on one hand, and presenting the doubts and criticisms on the other. If any editor has a problem with this, go ahead and edit and re-write the whole article to reflect how you believe this article should have presented. Before that, however, every editor is bound to make the lead a faithful representation of the whole article, rather than making it biased to any one side. --Pkchan 08:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
And here's a reminder that the proposed lead reads as thus (upon incorporating the revision in response to Nigelj's comment): --Pkchan 08:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The phrase Web 2.0 refers to what is perceived as a second generation of Internet-based services that put emphasis on allowing users to share and collaborate information online in new ways as part of the service, presented in a user-friendly, interactive, and often Ajax-enabled, user interface. The term was coined when O'Reilly Media, in collaboration with MediaLive International, used the phrase as the title for a series of conferences in 2004 and since then it has become a popular, if ill-defined and often criticized, buzzword amongst the technical and marketing communities.
- The current lead does give strong reference to O'Reilly precisely because this is an encyclopedia article describing a marketing term that O'Reilly created, O'Reilly defined and O'Reilly owns. If a handful of web developers feel that they have their own definitions of O'Reilly's term, then that's all well and good. These views do NOT, however, take the lead in an encyclopedia article. PkChan - you are consistent in trying to be fair to both "sides" of the debate surrounding this term. However, I believe this is now getting out of hand. One very vocal side of the debate is that the term is a real, grassroots, broad technical phenomenon. The other side of the debate claims that the word is a marketing term that has been deliberately overblown, not least by its owners, O'Reilly. In order to start the debate, we need to start with the _facts_ of the matter. Namely that O'Reilly created, defined and trademarked the term. We can then move onto the various redefinitions (or abuses, as some might say) of the term. But even then, I believe we'd be giving unfair authority to the term-manglers. This article is not about settling a score or making a point. It is merely about stating the facts that are known and accepted. Your proposed lead does NOT emphasise this in a concise manner. It is inappropriate, and this discussion is hence going nowhere. --Beachy 17:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Alright. If it is the order of appearance of O'Reilly that makes you uncomfortable with the proposed version, let's try to bring it forward. Please check if you are alright if the following version: --Pkchan 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    
    The phrase Web 2.0 was coined by O'Reilly Media, in collaboration with MediaLive International, in 2004 as the title for a series of conferences and refers to what is perceived as a second generation of Internet-based services that put emphasis on allowing users to share and collaborate information online in new ways as part of the service, presented in a user-friendly, interactive, and often Ajax-enabled, user interface. Since its conception, the term has become a popular, if ill-defined and often criticized, buzzword amongst the technical and marketing communities.
    - Looks okay to me, though I prefered the original. If concensus can't be reached on this one then I think we're going to need to bring in fresh eyes on this, as the current discussions are going nowhere. Artw 04:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- People don't "collaborate information" - that's not good English. They "share information", "collaborate by sharing information" or "collaborate and share information" (which last is from the current lead paragraph). I already made that point at the start. I'm not happy with "new ways" linking only to Folksonomy: what happened to things like "social networking sites, wikis, communication tools" (quoted from the current lead)? I made that point at the start too. The first sentence is 70 words long - that's not good English either. I suggested bullet-points last time, except that's not right for an opening sentence. Apart from these, it's getting closer to what we have now. I fear you'll never get consensus until it summarises the current article's content in good English - and that's what the present lead does. --Nigelj 18:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  - My fault -- I've forgotten to incorporate some of the changes in my first response to Nigelj above. Here is the updated version:
    The phrase Web 2.0 was first coined by O'Reilly Media, in collaboration with MediaLive International, as the title for a series of conferences and refers to what is perceived as a second generation of Internet-based services that allow users to collaborate and share information online in new ways using a user-friendly and often Ajax-enabled user interface. Since its conception in 2004, the term has become a popular, if ill-defined and often criticized, buzzword amongst the technical and marketing communities.
    Notes of the new version:
    
    "new ways" linking to folksonomy: explained in my first reply to Nigelj above. The list "social networking sites, wikis, communication tools" is outdated: see bullet #2 above.
    
    first sentence too long: now trimmed down by removing unnecessary words. Its length is to some extent inevitable to accommodate the o'Reilly mention at the very beginning.
    
    use of bullet point: agree that it doesn't look good when used in the first sentence. --Pkchan 12:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    - - The new version seems more reasonable, but is really just a slight re-wording of the current lead. If it will give PkChan the satisfaction he strives for and end this conversation, then this latest version gets my vote --Beachy 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      - Well. I'm afraid I still prefer the current lead. Apart from changing the order of some of the words and phrases in this version, Pkchan's main contribution would be to compress the existing list of technologies, viz "social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies", down to just "folksonomy", and then hide it as a wikilink behind the phrase "new ways". What's the problem with that current list? Is there a prize somewhere for people who've re-written the most leads? :-) --Nigelj 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Web 2.0 - desktop alerts

(originally posted on User talk:Pkchan [6])

Hi, I felt the connection between web 2.0 and desktop alerts was strong, especially under the established subheading of new web applications and desktops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wgardner (talk • contribs) .

That section refers to web desktops. I fail to see how desktop alerts are relevant here. --Pkchan 10:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

List of software

Would it be appropriate to include some of the most used and potentially useful Web 2.0 software on this article. Writely is mentioned, but there are many other, particulary office apps, such as ThinkFree, ajaxWriter, Google Spreadsheet, goffice and Zoho.

Gary 22:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be best not to, as it would cause the article to become a spam magnet. Artw 23:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, each submission would kick off a debate ("is it really web 2.0" etc), since there is no real definition of the standard (if it actually is a standard, that is). Web 2.0 is a marketing term - beware of this article becoming a "marketing article" --Beachy 09:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think a list would be fraught with difficulty, as there is no agreed definition. Although people are fairly sure they know what they are talking about, when push comes to shove, different people seem to have different ideas. I have found this by actually discussing particular cases. It's not as obvious as it looks, as Web 2.0 is all things to all men, and all men take something different away. Stephen B Streater 20:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead, you could create the following articles which are very well defined: List of social-networking websites,List of web-based applications, ... and create a links section to say "The following types of websites may be considered under the Web 2.0 category" Dheerav2 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation labels

Use seems excessive on this page, e.g. "the addition of Ajax scripting to websites can render the website completely unusable to anyone browsing with JavaScript turned off, or using a slightly older browser" has been marked as requiring a citation. What kind of citation is needed? It's a straightforward statement of fact. --18.63.7.159 06:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I am taking this one out (Javascript). (User: P00r. 15 September 2006)

Pronunciation

I have never heard "Web 2.0" pronounced "web two-point-nought". Has anyone else? I've always heard it spoken as "web two point oh", even though the last digit is a zero. Thoughts? --Careax 23:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy not to have it there. Logically, 0 is a number, but this is marketing ;-) Stephen B Streater 08:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to lose the alleged "official prononciation" of this marketing term. Besides, to me I'd say it was "Web two" --Beachy 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has only ever see Web 2.0 written and not spoken, I'd like some background on how people actually say it. Even if it's that some people say 2 dot oh and some two point zero etc. Really I want to know how not to say it should I ever have to mention it in a presentation, which seems likely. --Graham Cox

I think there's no 'official' rule (who would enforce it?). It's just a common-usage issue. Personally, here in the UK, I usually hear people say "web two" and write "Web 2.0". If anyone ever manages to popularise some arbitrary meaning for "Web 2.1", we'll have to adapt to that, at that time. It seems unlikely at the moment... Hey, marketing people! Have I just discovered an opportunity??! If so, don't forget, I wrote it here first ;-) --Nigelj 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Language usage

There's some confusion in tense in this article (the first part of it talks about Web 2.0 in the future, but later refers to it in the past tense?), but I'd like to give this article my grammatical stamp of approval based solely on the fact that it used the word "hithertofore." Kudos aplenty. 129.237.90.11 18:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Is the last paragraph of the Criticism section as good as it could be? It is certainly possible that Web 2.0 targets too small a market of potential Internet users. But I would argue that the concept is too ill-defined for that criticism really to stick. If it is "all singing, all dancing" Web apps, as described below, then yes, they won't "degrade gracefully" and will be unusable by most ordinary people. But when I think of Web 2.0, I think of sites like flickr and del.icio.us, and, to a lesser extent, Amazon, Google (especially the maps - with their AJAX backend, and the personal homepage feature), and social networking sites like Facebook (especially in its latest iteration, with Mini-Feed, etc.). Sites like that have a much larger user base than 50,000 people, although only Google and Amazon are really making money (and that, it could be argued, is for other reasons that their "Web 2.0"-ness). Thus, it seems that Koppelman's criticism is out-of-date or irrelevant. And the parenthesis about the site later getting more users seems, to this outsider, in-jokey at best. I'm going to get rid of it.

Evan Donovan 20:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think the main criticism should be pointed to the very core of defining the whole nonsense. If Tim O'Rly says that Skype is a "level 3" application of "the web" (what ever it might be if not the 'net) but email is "level 0" and could just as well function "off-line" (well not my email, thanks a lot), he's pretty much either playing the good ole bullshit-bingo or gratifying the way Skype made a business out of IM/VoIP/whatever whereas email as a concept is not a commercialized one. Quite honestly I'd still like to see a proper definition for the whole buzzword thing, or even an intuitive explanation. "Web as a platform"... oh phlease! There's been webmails since... what... 1996? -- sigs

Categories: Talk archives