On What is Web 2.0 Part 1

Executive Papers Comments (1)

Executive Summary

 

The “2.0” moniker was originally used to draw a line separating the state of the Web before and after the dot-com bubble burst in 2000.  It has since taken on new meme[1], which is “An interconnected Web of services” and data manipulation.[2],  The Term of Art[3], was original crafted in 2003 by Craig Cline, Dale Dougherty, -web pioneer- and Tim O’Reilly -VP of Oreilly- during a conference planning session; that conference became the Annual Web 2.0 Conference. 

 

Web 2.0 is about sharing first and foremost, and  the term now encapsulates the ways we use, interact and manipulate the information, data, and relational links of the World Wide Web (“Web”) in order to enhance the Web’s delivered contents (such as Wikipedia, where any person can edit the presented information).  Without sharing of the data, no one benefits.  Furthermore, a website once designated as a “Web 2.0” site can transition out of that phase, if it becomes stagnant or its user community abandons it.

 

In Web 2.0 users don’t just retrieve information, but can also manipulate, delete, add, reduce, comment on, -et al-, data, but more importantly, can also remix (ex. Youtube), re-present (Playlist.com) and even enhance data (Flickr, Yahoo Web Traffic CAM for navigating the morning traffic ported to Tivo DVR[4]), sometimes creating new forms of information (real time California Wild fires information linked to Google Maps).  Users can do this manipulation with data they own, or data they are allowed to access (posting of arrested people on Twitter, accessed from static Police dept. Websites). 

 

As more people participate in enhancing the data, the usability and usefulness of what is being manipulated increases, forming a neural net of information that is deeply informative, simple to use and encourages its own use.  The potential for increased analysis, worthwhile participation, and enhanced work product of its targeted users is what separates Web 2.0 from forum users of Web 1.0 users who would delete, remove or corrupt the data (Individually inputted Statistics for Fantasy Sports vs Official Feeds).  While data corruption is entirely possible in Web 2.0, the “wisdom of the crowd” eventually overcomes this attempt to undermine the data and in the end produces a superior product.

 

As more users join in the manipulation of the data, the means of delivering data becomes feature rich, and features begin to anticipate the needs of the users. As the data repository grows, more users enter and begin to use and create more data, generating more content in a never ending cycle.  However adoption by a critical mass of the particular targeted audience[5] does not happen until the data becomes easy to use, and that is when a site has achieved its true Web 2.0 status.

 

Therefore, the key to naming something Web 2.0 is whether the site or service has made the transition to allow users to interact, access or manipulate the data presented to the user, especially if the user were not able to manipulate the data before, and allow the user to interact –share- with other users of that data and finally extend the new data to the world beyond to even other users who are not on the original accessing site, i.e, the long tail.(ex, Facebook buttons, Trackbacks for Blogs and links on news websites to other web sites.)

 

 

OceansOfThought @ May 7, 2009