Talk:Web 2.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Contents 1 Removed "implementation" section 2 Vague article 3 Differing views 4 Cleanup 5 A New Paradigm (yeah, right) 6 A Definition 7 NPOV tag 8 Eyeballing 9 Removed the link to 24SevenOffice 10 What does Google have against this page? 11 Business Impact 12 Removals 13 Quibble on definition of Web 1.0

Removed "implementation" section

Boris Mann: I removed the "implementation" section pointing to companies -- let's not have this page be a commercial advertisement, but rather an evolving definition of Web 2.0. Link to a longer article on your own site if you want to talk about your opinions. I also removed WebDAV -- that's a particular technology choice, but is only one among many.

Vague article

This seems to be a vague article promoting a bunch of the author's favorite technologies and psuedo-tech-blabber. It certainly doesn't match how I've seen the term used. And some of the writing is just absurd -- XML-RPC is a specific format, it cannot be RESTian. If you want to remove the totallydisputed tag you're going to need some cites to back this stuff up.AaronSw 21:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Differing views

I contributed additional content to this very important document (unfortunately I forgot to login before making this round of edits). I would advice that differing views on Web 2.0 should be expressed by editing and contributing to the content. Basically, participate in the debate or conversation (constructively) and we will end up with an article with a high knowledge quotient. Simply placing Wiki tags template tags doesn't help such a cause. It costs next to no time to place a tag in an article and significant amount of time to express ones alternative view via content contribution. Wikis are about open conversation and debate (expressed through the contribution of knowledge), simply saying "I disagres everyone!" doesn't really fit into this scheme. Let's encourgage mass participation in this evolutionary process. Nothing is defnitive as all human beings are beasts of bias (our context and individual experiences are inextricably linked), open conversation and debate is how we dilute bias. --Kingsley Idehen 12:16, 25 Mar 2005

Cleanup

I'm not qualified to really resolve the debate over the definition, but I am pretty knowledgeable about the Wikipedia, so I changed things to conform better to Wikipedia standards. The text still needs a lot of cleanup to eliminate its present jargon-heavy, promotional tone. A more inclusive approach to the definition would be a vast improvement, i.e. more of a "web 2.0 is like this" than "web 2.0 is this". Future editors should try to think more in terms of explaining Web 2.0 rather than defining Web 2.0. Finally, I added it to the WWW category -- it seemed to call for a more explicit subcategory but there may not be a good one yet. It's something for the time being, at least. --Dhartung | Talk 07:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I just waded in and made some major changes. The text in this article is, frankly, some of the most terrible, impenetrable marketing gobbledygook I've seen outside of spam pages. There's no way that an average person looking at this article could make any sense out of it. Many claims are simply too POV for a neutral Wikipedia entry; this entry does not exist to sell Web 2.0 to people and should make clear when arguable claims are being made. I'm going to continue working through the article. I don't mind it being expanded or corrected, but whoever works on it would really do well to keep readability in mind. We have plenty of space to explain concepts; we don't need $50 words to make points. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A New Paradigm (yeah, right)

This "article" is a joke. Not up to Wikipedia standards. - Just my 2c PowerMacX 30 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)

I can see where it still needs major improvement, but I'd like to hear what changes you think are needed. I've put my money on the table by thoroughly rewriting almost the entire article in something closer to plain English. One problem is that there isn't a clear-cut agreement on a definition. The other is that it barely rises above listing technologies and hinting at how they work together. I've done what I can to eliminate POV problems, too. --Dhartung | Talk 1 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)

Without descending too far into a technical critique of the term and the ideas of its proponents, one can still express some significant misgivings about the value to wikipedia of such an article:

• The term 'Web 2.0' predates the attribution given in the article. It was first used as the title of a cover story for Wired Magazine in early 1997, if I recall correctly.
• Very little effort is made to explain software versioning, and why its taxonomy is a useful way of expressing the concept behind 'Web 2.0'.
• There's little more than a hand-waving effort to explain what the fundamental differences are between established web applications and services and the new ones cited in the article. Furthermore, no attempt is made to identify or reconcile the fairly obvious contention that these are not actually revolutionary changes, but instead incremental improvements on technologies and development strategies that have existed since the Web was first popularised. Surely this is essential information, without which readers would be hard pressed to comprehend what's being presented.
• Most importantly, no attempt has been made to express the currency of the phrase e.g. Is it widely used? Is it being promoted by a few? If the latter, who is promoting it? If the former, provide some useful examples to help readers contextualise the term.

Fundamentally, I agree that this article falls far short of wikipedia standards, and should either be significantly re-worked or... something. 8^) I'm not sure about wikipedia's process for dealing with significantly low-quality content, aside from appealing to the public for it to be improved, but this article in its current form casts little light and in fact provides false information with regards to at least one fact. --Gcrumb 01:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

These are good criticisms of the article, although I'm not sure why you go so far as to say it "doesn't meet Wikipedia standards" -- whatever those are. I could link to a few that are much, much worse, for example. At this point the article has taken collaborative input from a number of editors, which is proof at some level that there is interest. To your objections:

• The term "Web 2.0" per se is a fairly obvious wordplay. The Wired article you have in mind is almost certainly Hollywood 2.0, actually. (You know, I have all those in a box somewhere. Good times.) In any case, the idea being expressed by O'Reilly's choice of the term is the subject of this article, not the term itself.
• An explanation of why it's a programming pun would be helpful, I agree.
• Fundamental differences do exist, and I agree the article doesn't address these well. That's definitely an area for improvement. Revolutionary change is a claim that is frequently attributed to proponents of Web 2.0 (and we've seen it before with, say, Java), but almost every discussion I've seen simply sees this as a coalescing and maturity of various complementary technologies. I don't think revolutionary change per se is a requirement before having an article, but you're absolutely right that this could be explained better and would make more sense to readers if it did.
• Currency of the phrase does extend beyond the O'Reilly people who were, after all, putting a brand name on a conference. It's fair to say that its usage is contentious, not just for that reason, but for the ones you've given as well. I completely agree that context -- in the form of technology industry articles, for example -- would be an excellent addition to the article.

Gcrumb, thank you for your comments, I for one take them constructively. I have put a lot of effort into improving this article, and I don't doubt that it could use more. (What Wikipedia article is ever finished?) As for Wikipedia's "process", well, stepping in and improving it yourself is the first resort, and adding a comment or question to a Talk page, as you have done, comes right after that. Beyond that you may want to peruse the guide to improving articles, especially the section I've linked to. I think this article is well beyond mere clean-up and, since it has active contributors, the Talk page is the best place to handle the problems you're bringing to our attention.

If I can suggest a metaphor, this conversation is a very Web 2.0 type of interaction. You say the message isn't getting through, and we're listening. ;-) To me, that's the whole essence of Web 2.0, whether or not you like the jargon or not! --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

A Definition

Web 2.0 is a web of executable endpoints and well formed content. The executable endpoints and well formed content are accessible via URIs. Put differently, Web 2.0 is a web defined by URIs for invoking Web Services and/or consuming or syndicating well formed content.

Hopefully, someone with more time on their hands will expand on this ( I am kinda busy).

BTW - Web 2.0 being a platform doesn't distinguish it in anyway from Web 1.0. They are both platforms, the difference comes down to platform focus and mode of experience.

Kingsley Idehen 16:50, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

http://stilicho.blogspot.com/2005/04/blank-corporate-verse.html http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/002690.php

Please check the date and times of the earlier contributions to this article. If you are going to introduce links, at least provide a degree of chronology. Hopefully this will simplify juxtapostion of opinions and contribution for the lurking audience. It also provides context for Web 2.0 knowledge seekers in general.

BTW - it's nice to know why Web 2.0 is tagged npv. But what about making contributions that take it out of npv? If someone has the time to write a blog post expressing dispair and frustration, then why not channel that energy into providing clarity to matter that is clearly of vast importance? -- Kingsley Idehen 17:23, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Kingsley, I need to clarify. I did not POV-tag the article. The person who did that was JohnSmith777 (see his Talk and hasn't edited since). [NOTE: 13/8/05 This is Richard MacManus here - I just want to say that I am NOT JohnSmith777. Therefore I have edited out the reference to me that Dhartung made in the previous sentence.] I certainly have channeled my interest in providing clarity into the article, as the history indicates; I also had to express my frustration, and felt that did not belong on Wikipedia. I underline again that I have no problem with you personally, just incomprehensible writing. At this point I am perfectly happy to remove the tag if you agree; it does not seem to reflect specific claims of POV. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As there have been no further comments about the NPOV claims, I am removing the notice. Please bring any such issues here to Talk in future, with specific criticisms of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Richard, thank you for clarifying that. I apologize for suspecting it was you; I'm still mystified why that person disappeared after our exchange, which I didn't find testy at all. FYI, editing talk pages the way you did is usually a bad idea. Adding your reply would have been sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, will add reply next time :-) That was my first Wikipedia edit, so I don't know the protocols yet. But I've been following the conversation closely and I've just now added my own user page. So perhaps I will start to contribute here. --RichardMacManus | Talk 21:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Eyeballing

I'm not sure what is meant by eyeballing here, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with my eyeball. Could someone correct the link? --Dantams 14:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have removed the link. I have never heard of eyeballing, can someone verify that it is a term used in the industry? --Sleepyhead81 14:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've only rarely heard it as a verb. It was popular during the dot-com boom, e.g. Pets.com advertised like crazy in order to attract "eyeballs" to its website. The meaning is closer to "hit" in a web-traffic sense rather than "user" since a single user can view the site multiple times. If you attract enough eyeballs, your sales -- or your banner-ad click-throughs -- rise. Most web professionals probably think of it as an unhelpful marketing term. --Dhartung | Talk 17:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed the link to 24SevenOffice

This link doesn't belong here and the link is irrelevant and unnotable. - Sleepnomore 15:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling this article will attract linkspam on a regular basis. --Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to "reply"... don't have a Wikipedia account, either... but I figured I'd point out that I added a link (my first edit) to Tim O'Reilly's write up on what Web 2.0 is. --Michael Chui, 9:43, 14 October 2005

• Just to clarify: the 24SevenOffice link is relevant as it is a web 2.0 application. Whether it is notable enough to be included can be discussed though. --Sleepyhead81 17:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What does Google have against this page?

Why doesn't this page show up when you do a Google search for "Web 2.0"? Using a script, I looked at the first 780 or so results twice recently without getting a hit for any Wikipedia page, actually. I also tried searching for Wikipedia AND "Web 2.0", this page was not returned in the first 100 results. What's the explanation? Also, is there a reasonable search query that will return this page? EGalloway 00:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. It's weird. Google will usually privilege pages with the search term in the title and/or URL, so we should be high regardless; and it does index pages that refer to this one, but the only versions I turn up are from Wikipedia mirrors. I can only imagine it fell victim to some sort of spam protection; hopefully the next google dance will fix things. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Google definitely isn't indexing this page. If you do this search, you will get in response: "Sorry, no information is available for the URL en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0". It's strange that (presumably) this has been happening for about a month or even longer. EGalloway 23:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

At least out of curiosity, I put in a request for someone to look into this. I wonder what they'll say ... --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to update. Google simply referred me back to their FAQ pages, alas. It's still missing from the index. Strange. --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Business Impact

Would anyone be up for rephrasing the Business Impact section? Maybe I'm stupid, or something, but I have no idea what is meant by 'The potential for exponential business growth as a result of the effects of Web 2.0 comes down to the difference between human-instigated value consumption and computer-instigated value consumption.'

How I wish Wikipedia could ping watchers of this page with an email (or even IM). Anyway, here is clarification of what I mean by human vs computer driven value proposition consumption.

Web 1.0 was about web sites geared towards an interaction with human beings as opposed to computers. In a sense this mirrors the difference between HTML and XML.

A simple example: you need to purchase a book; amazon.com provides value to you by enabling you to search and purchase the desired book online via the site http://www.amazon.com for instance. In the Web 1.0 era the process of searching for your desired book, and then eventually purchasing the book in question, required visible interaction with the site http://www.amazon.com. In today's Web 2.0 based Web the process of discovering a catalog of books, searching for your particular book of interest, and eventually purchasing the book, occurs via Web Services which amazon has chosen to expose via an executable end point (the point of presence for exposing its Web Services). Direct interaction via http://www.amazon.com is no longer required. A weblog can quite easily associate keywords, tags, and post categories with items in amazon.com's catalogs. In addition, weblogs can also act as entry points for consuming the amazon.com value proposition (making books available for purchase online), by enabling you to purchase a book directly from the weblog (assuming the blog owner is an amazon associate etc..). Now compare the impact of this kind of value discovery and consumption cycle that is driven by software to the same process driven by humans, and I am hope my use of the phrase "exponential growth" is somewhat clearer :-)

BTW - If you were to track the upward trend of amazon.com's financial performance and its adoption of Web Services (by this I mean exposing its service innards to SOAP invocation) you will find an interesting trend. --

Kingsley Idehen 22:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Removals

I have removed the following paragraph:

Others think that Web 2.0 will not be an incremental improvment, but much more. It will fix pop up blockers and spam filters and provide us more of a broadband users experience that the users want. In the future, there will be no difference between a desktop application and a web site. For example iTunes lets you browse the web for music albums - a hybrid application, redefining the word webapp, to mean hybrid of website and application.

This contains

• vague statements ("provide us more of what we want", "broadband users experience")
• crystal balling ("in the future, there will be...")
• random example of iTunes, which further is claimed to "redefine" something

I also removed the list of applications "widely thought" to be examples of web 2.0 apps, per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms (who's widely thinking?). If anyone wants to make a list of examples, attribute it to a good source (like the O'Reilly table). The list also contained some spam. Fredrik | talk 08:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Quibble on definition of Web 1.0

The current text says "The original conception of the web (in this context, labeled Web 1.0) comprised static HTML pages that were updated rarely, if at all". Actually, Tim Berners-Lee's original conception was of a web of documents that were subject to continuous, collaborative authorship and refinement (something like WP, in fact). It is true that the original implementation of the Web comprised static HTML pages. But I'm just a drive-by editor; I make the suggestion for someone more invested in this article. David Brooks 16:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)