Talk:Web 2.0

; Archives
	March 2005 – February 2006; March 2006 – May 2006;

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Zbigniew Domaszewicz (2006-03-06). "Czy Web 2.0 to rewolucja w internecie?". Gazeta Wyborcza. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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 sued, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jokes about Web 2.0

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

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

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)[reply]

Here it is: [2] Be warned: It's not a pretty sight.--Planetary 08:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.