Buzz
The O'Reilly Media website serves as an excellent illustration of Web 2.0 in practice.
Image credit: Mytour 2007If you ask a group of a dozen Internet experts to define Web 2.0, you'll receive varying interpretations. Some argue that Web 2.0 represents a collection of philosophies and practices offering Web users a more profound and engaging experience. Others view it as a new set of tools and technologies that simplify the process of finding information and connecting with others online. A few journalists contend that the term is essentially meaningless – merely a marketing strategy to promote social networking platforms.
Before diving into the debate over what Web 2.0 truly means, let's explore its origins. In 2004, O'Reilly Media and MediaLive International held a brainstorming session. The two organizations planned a conference to discuss the state of the Web, its future, and emerging strategies that would drive its success online. Tim O'Reilly, the founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media, wanted to highlight that despite the dot-com crash of 2000, the Web was poised to become a significant revenue generator.
During this brainstorming session, O'Reilly Media's publisher Dale Dougherty coined the term Web 2.0 to represent the new online ecosystem that emerged after the crash. While many Internet companies went bankrupt, a few resilient sites endured. New Web sites were launching every day, many of which adopted completely different business models from the commercial sites that existed prior to the crash.
Despite the buzz, no one had a definitive understanding of what Web 2.0 actually entailed. If Web 2.0 truly existed, did that imply the existence of Web 1.0 as well? The term '2.0' suggested an upgrade or a new generation of websites, yet there was no agreement on what distinguished Web 2.0 from Web 1.0.
In September 2005, Tim O'Reilly published a blog post offering his definition of Web 2.0. His explanation spanned five pages, filled with text and visuals that showcased O'Reilly's perspective on the concept.
O'Reilly's vision of Web 2.0 included the following core ideas:
- Leveraging the Web as a platform for applications
- Opening the Web to everyone
- Utilizing innovative methods to share information
In this article, we will examine each of these concepts. We will also dive into the discussion about whether or not Web 2.0 holds any tangible meaning in practical terms.
In the upcoming section, we will explore what it means to utilize the Web as a platform.
Utilizing the Web as a Platform
Vinton Cerf, a Vice President at Google, spoke at the World Knowledge Forum in Seoul in October 2007. Google exemplifies O'Reilly's vision of a Web 2.0 company.
Photo by Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty ImagesIn his blog post explaining his Web 2.0 philosophy, Tim O'Reilly noted that before the dot-com bubble burst, Web companies like Netscape focused on offering a product. Netscape's product was a Web browser. These products would then lay the groundwork for additional applications and services. O'Reilly's concept of a Web 2.0 company is one that offers a service rather than a product.
The example O'Reilly used to illustrate his point was Google. He argued that Google's value is derived from several key factors:
- It’s a cross-platform service. Google can be accessed on a PC or Mac through a Web browser, or on mobile devices like a cell phone.
- It avoids the traditional software industry business model. There’s no need to purchase specific software to use the service.
- It integrates a specialized information database -- search results -- which works smoothly with its search engine. Without the database, the search app becomes useless. Conversely, without the search app, the database is too vast to explore effectively.
Other platforms adopt a similar approach. In 2007, the social network Facebook allowed third-party developers to tap into its API. Soon after, hundreds of new applications emerged, leveraging Facebook as their platform. Facebook users can select from a variety of apps to enhance their online experience.
The service and access a website provides are crucial aspects of Web 2.0's philosophy, aligning with the concept of web democratization. In the following section, we’ll explore how regular users are engaging with and shaping the Internet.
While providing a positive user experience is essential for Web services, it’s equally important to keep things simple. Overloading a system with too many options or making it overly complicated for the average user can drive away potential customers. A complex system may attract a small group of tech enthusiasts, but to appeal to a larger audience, the service must remain straightforward and user-friendly. For example, websites filled with flashy animations, multimedia features, and interactive elements may intrigue tech-savvy users with high-speed internet. However, for the average user, these sites may seem like a lot of noise without meaningful content.
Web Democratization
The Amazon website embodies several Web 2.0 principles, such as allowing customers to share book reviews, creating an interactive space for users to contribute their opinions.Web democratization refers to how individuals interact with and contribute to the Web. In the early days, many Web pages were static, with no way for users to add content or engage with what was presented. Some companies viewed the Internet much like television -- users would simply consume content without interaction. However, others, like Amazon, took a different approach by allowing users to create accounts and post book reviews, empowering anyone to act as a literary critic. These user-generated reviews quickly became a valuable resource for others deciding which books to purchase, allowing Amazon’s community to actively shape the online experience.
The Web 2.0 philosophy highlights the value of user interaction with the Internet. It allows everyone the chance to contribute to the Web. By observing user behavior and needs online, companies can improve their services and build stronger customer loyalty. Some websites, like Wikis, rely entirely on user-generated content. Without these contributions, the site would not exist. Users are able to add, edit, or even remove content, shaping the website’s evolution based on collective participation.
Tim O'Reilly emphasized the significance of harnessing collective intelligence. He argued that websites shaped by user contributions would outperform others in quality and relevance. He pointed to Wikipedia as a prime example, where the knowledge of a vast community of users helps maintain and improve the content. However, since anyone can contribute, there’s always a risk of incorrect information being submitted, either unintentionally or intentionally. There’s no way to fully guarantee the accuracy of the content, and accountability for errors can be difficult.
Another key aspect of Web democratization is the tag. Tags are labels that users attach to content, categorizing it under specific topics. Many websites allow users to tag everything from images to blog posts. These tags are crucial when people use search engines. By tagging content with relevant keywords, users can ensure their information is easily found by others. When a user searches for a term matching a tag, the relevant content appears in the search results. Tagging not only speeds up searches but also improves efficiency. This practice of user-generated tagging forms part of folksonomy, a Web-based classification system.
The final aspect of democratization is open source software. Open source programs allow anyone to view the code used to create an application. But the access goes further – many open source licenses also enable users to modify the code, optimize it, or even develop entirely new programs based on the original. In an ideal world, open source programs benefit from thorough quality assurance testing since anyone can analyze and test the code.
However, Web democratization is only one element of Web 2.0's broader philosophy. In the following section, we'll explore how websites distribute information dynamically.
Distributing Information
Technorati is a website that tracks and catalogs blogs, providing a valuable resource for blog enthusiasts.
Screenshot by Mytour 2007Before the dot-com crash, most Web pages displayed static images and text, with updates happening infrequently. As Web editing tools improved, it became simpler for website administrators to make regular changes. While some businesses continued with static content, others began exploring innovative ways of delivering information to users.
One innovative approach was the use of Web syndication formats such as Really Simple Syndication (RSS). RSS allows users to subscribe to websites and receive notifications whenever updates are made by the site administrators. Developers also created RSS readers for PC and Mac desktops, which enabled users to stay updated on their favorite websites without needing to open a web browser.
An unexpected method of sharing information on the web emerged through blogs. While personal web pages have existed since the early days of the Internet, blogs stand apart from these traditional pages. For example, blogs are typically organized in reverse chronological order, allowing readers to view the latest posts first and easily access older entries in the blog's timeline.
Blogs serve as an effective tool for rapidly disseminating information. Readers discover interesting content on blogs, write about it on their own blogs, and pass the information along. This viral sharing of information from one blogger to another is referred to as viral marketing. Many businesses are exploring how to leverage viral marketing as an affordable yet powerful advertising tool, where the audience does most of the promotional work.
Websites like blogs depend on permalinks. These hypertext links point directly to specific blog entries. Without permalinks, navigating blog content would be cumbersome, as all links would lead to the main page, which may have changed since the link was initially created. Permalinks offer a direct route to particular entries, making it easier to share fascinating discussions with others.
Another significant aspect of Web 2.0 is the integration of non-computer devices into the online ecosystem. Many cell phones and PDAs now feature Internet connectivity, and Apple's iTunes application seamlessly works with iPods. O'Reilly highlights the expansion of web services beyond traditional computers as a key example of the evolving nature of the Internet.
In the upcoming section, we will explore the perspectives of some members of the Web community who question the necessity of the term Web 2.0.
Podcasting has grown into a popular method of sharing content—it merges the sequential format of a blog, the subscription capability of a Web syndication format, and the option to connect non-computer devices to the Web. Video blogs (vlogs) on platforms like YouTube offer another avenue for people to share their insights.
The Web 2.0 Debate
The term Web 2.0 has sparked considerable debate. Some people disagree on its precise meaning, while others argue that the term itself lacks significance. Below, we summarize the primary viewpoints:
- Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, rejected the concept of Web 2.0. He called it "a piece of jargon" and remarked that "nobody even knows what it means" in an interview with IBM developerWorks. Berners-Lee emphasized that the Web was always designed to connect people, and he saw no revolutionary shift with the Web 2.0 philosophy [source: developerWorks].
- Russell Shaw, a telecommunications author, published a blog post in 2005 dismissing the term as nothing more than a marketing gimmick. He argued that while the individual elements of Web 2.0 exist, they cannot be unified under a single concept. Shaw suggested that the goals of Web 2.0 are too broad and often contradict one another.
- Jay Fienberg, a specialist in information architecture, called Web 2.0 a "retrospective concept." He believed that within a year of O'Reilly introducing the term, it had already become a marketing tool. Fienberg pointed out that many tech companies adopted the term to appear innovative, which diluted its original meaning [source: the iCite net].
- Paul Graham, an Internet essayist, initially dismissed Web 2.0 as a buzzword but later reconsidered his stance after O'Reilly published his interpretation of Web 2.0. Although Graham initially thought the term had no meaning, he later felt it was a more accurate reflection of the Web's evolution, focusing on fostering real connections between users and enabling higher interactivity.
- Andrew Keen, an Internet critic, has a notably critical perspective on Web 2.0. He characterizes the rise of self-publishing and blogging as "digital narcissism" [source: Wall Street Journal]. Keen's argument is not about the existence of Web 2.0, but rather about whether it is a positive development. He suggests that while people are posting vast amounts of content, few are taking the time to read it, which harms institutions that are dedicated to producing quality content in favor of a flood of unchecked opinions.
Countless blog posts continue to explore Web 2.0, debating its true meaning and questioning whether it's truly a leap forward in the development of the Internet. It's still too early to determine if the term will endure or simply fade as just another marketing buzzword. For now, we will likely see its principles incorporated across the Web.
Many believe that Web 2.0 has become so overloaded with interpretations that it has ultimately turned into a buzzword. Some experts in the field of Web 2.0 have distanced themselves from the term, opting instead for expressions like social networking and Web democratization.
