What The Flock Is Web 2.0 Anyway?
A good question. As a friend of mine put it,
“I mean am I spending to much time enjoying the gentle wonders of nature cause I seemed to miss that big Web 1.0 moment. Didn’t Web 1.0 have something to do with Battlestar Galatica 1.0 when StarBuck got his balls caught in a Cylon’s crotch and Apollo saved the day by shouting out the super secret destructo code.”
To which I responded,
“Well, no and I’d suggest you don’t drop acid cause it’ll slowly gnaw away your brain and you’re decidedly uncool when caught in its grip. Last comment a case in point.”
To which she responded,
“So you can’t answer the question can you?”
And the truth is I can’t. Web 2.0 is… well… no one seems to know but it has a ring to it, like a good Super Bowl jingle. I do find it interesting that people are naming this something “new” with the same nomenclature that identified the “old.” Kinda seems that any event to discard dusty ideas should begin with discarding old language. Feels like we’re using one of those old tag maker machines circa 1977 to paste labels on our new products. But that’s a quibble.
We can point to websites and say, “HEY THAT’S WEB 2.0 MAN!” Sites such as Flickr, delicious (might look funny without the periods (.), and ebay’s reputation system are all aspects of Web 2.0. But so what? My ass is a part of my body but has nothing to do with how I define “my body.” Did that makes sense? Anyway, it’s not much help to point to sites and say “Web Two Point Oh”, that only confirms the absence of a working definition.
So let’s go to some “experts.” Ross Mayfield, putting me to shame in the succinct factor, says,
“Web 2.0 is made of people and that’s all I have to say.”
Perhaps I’m missing context, like Mr. Mayfield was reacting to a meme or some conversation idiots like me aren’t privy to but I can say with some authority that Web 2.0 is not made of people or at least not people I’m familiar with. I’m sure the comment was metaphorical in nature but any definition that dismisses the prominent place technology plays in Web 2.0 is useless. As a slogan it’s great as definition it sucks.
Let’s head on over to the Great Book of All Cosmic Knowledge, Wikipedia, and see what they (in the truest sense of the word) say about Web 2.0. According to the great and powerful Wiki, Web 2.0 is… I’m waiting for it to load… still waiting… still — okay here we are, Web 2.0,
refers to a transition of the perception of numerous aspects of the World Wide Web, including its architecture and its applications. However, a consensus upon its exact meaning has not yet been reached.
The article then goes on to explain what that, as yet undefined, exact meaning might be. So basically they have no fucking clue. Fair enough, but everyone could save themselves time if they’d simply stick a big banner on their Web 2.0 site saying, “WE STILL DON’T KNOW. CHECK BACK IN A WEEK.” Failing to find an answer at Wiki I’ll do what any rational human being would do, dash over to the Repository of Universal Knowledge and google in “Web 2.0 defined.”
And like magic I get a useful hit. Read/Write’s blog post trying to figure out the exact same thing I am. Richard MacManus, the author of said site, did a lot of the leg work for me (mental note, maybe Web 2.0 is a Masonic plot to soften up the race. Shit, I don’t have to think hard no much). Mr. MacManus analyses various tags attached to the term Web 2.0 (some of them are seriously stupid and give credence to my Masonic plot theory. I mean tagging Web 2.0 “web”??? Well, yeah. And I get the point of the system and if looked at from a certain cynical perspective it’s stupid, plus funny in the “let’s make fun of what our friend’s wearing but not tell him it makes him look like a pathetic looser” kinda way. Quick disclaimer: I tag and may have even tagged a Web 2.0 site “web” at some point in time but I’m very clear about my stupidity) and lists some quotes from brainy people who try to define Web 2.0. Here’s my favorite, from Jeff Bezos, the dude pulling Amazon’s levers,
“web 2.0…is about making the Internet useful for computers.”
Here’s the deal with this one. Jeff Bezos is a smarter man than I can dare dream to be so maybe that conspicuous (….) in the beginning is leaving out a ton of context and intelligence. It’s either that or Jeff Bezos lost his mind cause “making the internet useful for computers” is Forrest Gump on 100 proof. He’s Mayfield’s Bizzaro twin here. One sees only people the other only micro chips. How about we make the internet and computers useful to me and my fellow bipedals. Then again, maybe the statement is so beyond my pea brain that I’m missing it’s brilliance. Could be. Probably is.
Any other quotes that might shed some light on the question at hand? Here’s one by Jeff Udell,
“Don’t think of the Web as a client-server system that simply delivers web pages to web servers. Think of it as a distributed services architecture, with the URL as a first generation “API” for calling those services.”
Thanks, that clears it up for me. What the fucks an API? What is that R2D2’s shit bucket cousin? You’re talking to an idiot here Jeff, talk like that glosses my eyes over and makes me reach for another mind numbing beverage.
Pretty much every other comment in Richard’s post hides the fact that no one knows what Web 2.0 is or will be. As for my generous host, Mr. MacManus defines Web 2.0 thusly,
“I prefer the succinct “The Web as Platform”, because I can then fill in the blanks depending on who I’m talking to. For corporate people, the Web is a platform for business. For marketers, the Web is a platform for communications. For journalists, the Web is a platform for new media. For geeks, the Web is a platform for software development. And so on.”
It’s a better stab at it then the people he quotes. I get it at least, but it’s a kitchen sink definition. In other words, Web 2.0 means whatever the hell you want it to mean, which essentially means that it’s meaningless.
Where does this leaves us? Bored most likely. Who gives a shit what Web 2.0 is defined as? I got bills to pay and football game to watch. Well, let’s not give up so easily. One more attempt before we call it quits. Over on Om Malik’s Blog he has a similar post to Richard’s with more quotes from smart people. Easily the most relatable one is by Dave Winer,
“Web 2.0 is a marketing concept used by venture capitalists and conference promoters to try to call another bubble into existence.
It’s relatable because it feels cynical. “Okay, it’s a frickin sham.” I grok that, like a cross between a Slinky and Paris Hilton. “WEB 2.0 SUCKS MAN!” Could be and while Mr. Winer may have a point it’s not a workable definition, more a reaction to attempts at definition.
So what we’ve established is there is no definition of Web 2.0, none that I can find and if Google doesn’t have it then it doesn’t exist right? Hell, there may never be a definition and whatever “it” is may never exist. This brings up the point of why so many people are talking about it and you’re either gonna come down on the side of “they’re stupid” or “they might see something I don’t.” I don’t think these people are stupid so I’m not sure where that leaves me but my opinion basically is “hell, it’s a free for all,” or there is no definition so it’s a pig pile man, akin to Wrestle Mania XXXVIIII.
Here’s what I do know: there are a lot of new web applications popping up. A lot of them do cool shit that hasn’t been done before. In this sense Web 2.0 is my internet playground and a playground provides me the following things (conversely, some of these new tools are a waste of my time and offer me no benefit what so ever. Let’s concentrate on the positive right now). My playground must be:
- fun
- user friendly
- uniting
- interactive
- interpersonal
- community oreinted
- creative
- inviting
- growth fostering
- and, again, fun
Putting it all together for an idiot like myself Web 2.0 is an interactive internet experience that unites me with a global community and similar micro-communities to provide a user friendly, fun, creative, and growth fostering experience. Pie in the sky? Possibly. But if this Web 2.0 thing doesn’t pan out or becomes Microsoft 2.0 or goes the way of 8-Tracks I can always step outside, take a walk around the neighborhood and settle into my local pub for beer and good cheer.
Leave a comment