fbpx
Wikipedia

Web 2.0

January 13, 2023

Web 2.0 (also known as participative (or participatory)[1] web and social web)[2] refers to websites that emphasize user-generated content, ease of use, participatory culture and interoperability (i.e., compatibility with other products, systems, and devices) for end users.

A tag cloud (a typical Web 2.0 phenomenon in itself) presenting Web 2.0 themes

The term was coined by Darcy DiNucci in 1999[3] and later popularized by Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty at the first Web 2.0 Conference in 2004.[4][5][6] Although the term mimics the numbering of software versions, it does not denote a formal change in the nature of the World Wide Web,[7] but merely describes a general change that occurred during this period as interactive websites proliferated and came to overshadow the older, more static websites of the original Web.[8]

A Web 2.0 website allows users to interact and collaborate with each other through social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community. This contrasts the first generation of Web 1.0-era websites where people were limited to viewing content in a passive manner. Examples of Web 2.0 features include social networking sites or social media sites (e.g., Facebook), blogs, wikis, folksonomies ("tagging" keywords on websites and links), video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube), image sharing sites (e.g., Flickr), hosted services, Web applications ("apps"), collaborative consumption platforms, and mashup applications.

Whether Web 2.0 is substantially different from prior Web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who describes the term as jargon.[9] His original vision of the Web was "a collaborative medium, a place where we [could] all meet and read and write".[10][11] On the other hand, the term Semantic Web (sometimes referred to as Web 3.0)[12] was coined by Berners-Lee to refer to a web of content where the meaning can be processed by machines.[13]

History

Main article: History of the World Wide Web

Web 1.0

Web 1.0 is a retronym referring to the first stage of the World Wide Web's evolution, from roughly 1991 to 2004. According to Graham Cormode and Balachander Krishnamurthy, "content creators were few in Web 1.0 with the vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content".[14] Personal web pages were common, consisting mainly of static pages hosted on ISP-run web servers, or on free web hosting services such as Tripod and the now-defunct GeoCities.[15][16] With Web 2.0, it became common for average web users to have social-networking profiles (on sites such as Myspace and Facebook) and personal blogs (sites like Blogger, Tumblr and LiveJournal) through either a low-cost web hosting service or through a dedicated host. In general, content was generated dynamically, allowing readers to comment directly on pages in a way that was not common previously.[citation needed]

Some Web 2.0 capabilities were present in the days of Web 1.0, but were implemented differently. For example, a Web 1.0 site may have had a guestbook page for visitor comments, instead of a comment section at the end of each page (typical of Web 2.0). During Web 1.0, server performance and bandwidth had to be considered—lengthy comment threads on multiple pages could potentially slow down an entire site. Terry Flew, in his third edition of New Media, described the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 as a

"move from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from publishing to participation, from web content as the outcome of large up-front investment to an ongoing and interactive process, and from content management systems to links based on "tagging" website content using keywords (folksonomy)."

Flew believed these factors formed the trends that resulted in the onset of the Web 2.0 "craze".[17]

Characteristics

Some common design elements of a Web 1.0 site include:[18]

Web 2.0

The term "Web 2.0" was coined by Darcy DiNucci, an information architecture consultant, in her January 1999 article "Fragmented Future":[3][21]

The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven.

Writing when Palm Inc. introduced its first web-capable personal digital assistant (supporting Web access with WAP), DiNucci saw the Web "fragmenting" into a future that extended beyond the browser/PC combination it was identified with. She focused on how the basic information structure and hyper-linking mechanism introduced by HTTP would be used by a variety of devices and platforms. As such, her "2.0" designation refers to the next version of the Web that does not directly relate to the term's current use.

The term Web 2.0 did not resurface until 2002.[22][23][24] Such as Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Google, made it easy to con- nect and engage in online transactions. Web 2.0 introduced new features, such as multimedia content and interactive web applications, which mainly consisted of two-dimensional screens.[25] Kinsley and Eric focus on the concepts currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a universal, standards-based integration platform".[24] In 2004, the term began to popularize when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, John Battelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform", where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business for you".[26] They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. O'Reilly and Battelle contrasted Web 2.0 with what they called "Web 1.0". They associated this term with the business models of Netscape and the Encyclopædia Britannica Online. For example,

"Netscape framed 'the web as platform' in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the 'horseless carriage' framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a 'webtop' to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.[27]"

In short, Netscape focused on creating software, releasing updates and bug fixes, and distributing it to the end users. O'Reilly contrasted this with Google, a company that did not, at the time, focus on producing end-user software, but instead on providing a service based on data, such as the links that Web page authors make between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer Web searches based on reputation through its "PageRank" algorithm. Unlike software, which undergoes scheduled releases, such services are constantly updated, a process called "the perpetual beta". A similar difference can be seen between the Encyclopædia Britannica Online and Wikipedia – while the Britannica relies upon experts to write articles and release them periodically in publications, Wikipedia relies on trust in (sometimes anonymous) community members to constantly write and edit content. Wikipedia editors are not required to have educational credentials, such as degrees, in the subjects in which they are editing. Wikipedia is not based on subject-matter expertise, but rather on an adaptation of the open source software adage "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". This maxim is stating that if enough users are able to look at a software product's code (or a website), then these users will be able to fix any "bugs" or other problems. The Wikipedia volunteer editor community produces, edits, and updates articles constantly. Web 2.0 conferences have been held every year since 2004, attracting entrepreneurs, representatives from large companies, tech experts and technology reporters.

The popularity of Web 2.0 was acknowledged by 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year (You).[28] That is, TIME selected the masses of users who were participating in content creation on social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites.

In the cover story, Lev Grossman explains:

"It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world but also change the way the world changes."

Characteristics

Instead of merely reading a Web 2.0 site, a user is invited to contribute to the site's content by commenting on published articles, or creating a user account or profile on the site, which may enable increased participation. By increasing emphasis on these already-extant capabilities, they encourage users to rely more on their browser for user interface, application software ("apps") and file storage facilities. This has been called "network as platform" computing.[5] Major features of Web 2.0 include social networking websites, self-publishing platforms (e.g., WordPress' easy-to-use blog and website creation tools), "tagging" (which enables users to label websites, videos or photos in some fashion), "like" buttons (which enable a user to indicate that they are pleased by online content), and social bookmarking.

Users can provide the data and exercise some control over what they share on a Web 2.0 site.[5][29] These sites may have an "architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.[4][5] Users can add value in many ways, such as uploading their own content on blogs, consumer-evaluation platforms (e.g. Amazon and eBay), news websites (e.g. responding in the comment section), social networking services, media-sharing websites (e.g. YouTube and Instagram) and collaborative-writing projects.[30] Some scholars argue that cloud computing is an example of Web 2.0 because it is simply an implication of computing on the Internet.[31]

 
Edit box interface through which anyone could edit a Wikipedia article.

Web 2.0 offers almost all users the same freedom to contribute.[32] While this opens the possibility for serious debate and collaboration, it also increases the incidence of "spamming", "trolling", and can even create a venue for hate speech, cyberbullying, and defamation. The impossibility of excluding group members who do not contribute to the provision of goods (i.e., to the creation of a user-generated website) from sharing the benefits (of using the website) gives rise to the possibility that serious members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and "free ride" on the contributions of others.[33] This requires what is sometimes called radical trust by the management of the Web site.

According to Best,[34] the characteristics of Web 2.0 are rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, Web standards, and scalability. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom,[35] and collective intelligence[36] by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0. Some websites require users to contribute user-generated content to have access to the website, to discourage "free riding".

 
A list of ways that people can volunteer to improve Mass Effect Wiki on Wikia, an example of content generated by users working collaboratively.

The key features of Web 2.0 include:[citation needed]

  1. Folksonomy – free classification of information; allows users to collectively classify and find information (e.g. "tagging" of websites, images, videos or links)
  2. Rich user experience – dynamic content that is responsive to user input (e.g., a user can "click" on an image to enlarge it or find out more information)
  3. User participation – information flows two ways between the site owner and site users by means of evaluation, review, and online commenting. Site users also typically create user-generated content for others to see (e.g., Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that anyone can write articles for or edit)
  4. Software as a service (SaaS) – Web 2.0 sites developed APIs to allow automated usage, such as by a Web "app" (software application) or a mashup
  5. Mass participation – near-universal web access leads to differentiation of concerns, from the traditional Internet user base (who tended to be hackers and computer hobbyists) to a wider variety of users, drastically changing the audience of internet users.

Technologies

The client-side (Web browser) technologies used in Web 2.0 development include Ajax and JavaScript frameworks. Ajax programming uses JavaScript and the Document Object Model (DOM) to update selected regions of the page area without undergoing a full page reload. To allow users to continue interacting with the page, communications such as data requests going to the server are separated from data coming back to the page (asynchronously).

Otherwise, the user would have to routinely wait for the data to come back before they can do anything else on that page, just as a user has to wait for a page to complete the reload. This also increases the overall performance of the site, as the sending of requests can complete quicker independent of blocking and queueing required to send data back to the client. The data fetched by an Ajax request is typically formatted in XML or JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format, two widely used structured data formats. Since both of these formats are natively understood by JavaScript, a programmer can easily use them to transmit structured data in their Web application.

When this data is received via Ajax, the JavaScript program then uses the Document Object Model to dynamically update the Web page based on the new data, allowing for rapid and interactive user experience. In short, using these techniques, web designers can make their pages function like desktop applications. For example, Google Docs uses this technique to create a Web-based word processor.

As a widely available plug-in independent of W3C standards (the World Wide Web Consortium is the governing body of Web standards and protocols), Adobe Flash was capable of doing many things that were not possible pre-HTML5. Of Flash's many capabilities, the most commonly used was its ability to integrate streaming multimedia into HTML pages. With the introduction of HTML5 in 2010 and the growing concerns with Flash's security, the role of Flash became obsolete, with browser support ending on December 31, 2020.

In addition to Flash and Ajax, JavaScript/Ajax frameworks have recently become a very popular means of creating Web 2.0 sites. At their core, these frameworks use the same technology as JavaScript, Ajax, and the DOM. However, frameworks smooth over inconsistencies between Web browsers and extend the functionality available to developers. Many of them also come with customizable, prefabricated 'widgets' that accomplish such common tasks as picking a date from a calendar, displaying a data chart, or making a tabbed panel.

On the server-side, Web 2.0 uses many of the same technologies as Web 1.0. Languages such as Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, as well as Enterprise Java (J2EE) and Microsoft.NET Framework, are used by developers to output data dynamically using information from files and databases. This allows websites and web services to share machine readable formats such as XML (Atom, RSS, etc.) and JSON. When data is available in one of these formats, another website can use it to integrate a portion of that site's functionality.

Concepts

Web 2.0 can be described in three parts:

  • Rich web application — defines the experience brought from desktop to browser, whether it is "rich" from a graphical point of view or a usability/interactivity or features point of view.[contradictory]
  • Web-oriented architecture (WOA) — defines how Web 2.0 applications expose their functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate the functionality providing a set of much richer applications. Examples are feeds, RSS feeds, web services, mashups.
  • Social Web — defines how Web 2.0 websites tend to interact much more with the end user and make the end user an integral part of the website, either by adding his or her profile, adding comments on content, uploading new content, or adding user-generated content (e.g., personal digital photos).

As such, Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client- and server-side software, content syndication and the use of network protocols. Standards-oriented Web browsers may use plug-ins and software extensions to handle the content and user interactions. Web 2.0 sites provide users with information storage, creation, and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment known as "Web 1.0".

Web 2.0 sites include the following features and techniques, referred to as the acronym SLATES by Andrew McAfee:[37]

Search
Finding information through keyword search.
Links to other websites
Connects information sources together using the model of the Web.
Authoring
The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many authors. Wiki users may extend, undo, redo and edit each other's work. Comment systems allow readers to contribute their viewpoints.
Tags
Categorization of content by users adding "tags" — short, usually one-word or two-word descriptions — to facilitate searching. For example, a user can tag a metal song as "death metal". Collections of tags created by many users within a single system may be referred to as "folksonomies" (i.e., folk taxonomies).
Extensions
Software that makes the Web an application platform as well as a document server. Examples include Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, ActiveX, Oracle Java, QuickTime, WPS Office and Windows Media.
Signals
The use of syndication technology, such as RSS feeds to notify users of content changes.

While SLATES forms the basic framework of Enterprise 2.0, it does not contradict all of the higher level Web 2.0 design patterns and business models. It includes discussions of self-service IT, the long tail of enterprise IT demand, and many other consequences of the Web 2.0 era in enterprise uses.[38]

Social Web

A third important part of Web 2.0 is the social web. The social Web consists of a number of online tools and platforms where people share their perspectives, opinions, thoughts and experiences. Web 2.0 applications tend to interact much more with the end user. As such, the end user is not only a user of the application but also a participant by:

The popularity of the term Web 2.0, along with the increasing use of blogs, wikis, and social networking technologies, has led many in academia and business to append a flurry of 2.0's to existing concepts and fields of study,[39] including Library 2.0, Social Work 2.0,[40]Enterprise 2.0, PR 2.0,[41] Classroom 2.0,[42] Publishing 2.0,[43] Medicine 2.0,[44] Telco 2.0, Travel 2.0, Government 2.0,[45] and even Porn 2.0.[46] Many of these 2.0s refer to Web 2.0 technologies as the source of the new version in their respective disciplines and areas. For example, in the Talis white paper "Library 2.0: The Challenge of Disruptive Innovation", Paul Miller argues

Blogs, wikis and RSS are often held up as exemplary manifestations of Web 2.0. A reader of a blog or a wiki is provided with tools to add a comment or even, in the case of the wiki, to edit the content. This is what we call the Read/Write web. Talis believes that Library 2.0 means harnessing this type of participation so that libraries can benefit from increasingly rich collaborative cataloging efforts, such as including contributions from partner libraries as well as adding rich enhancements, such as book jackets or movie files, to records from publishers and others.[47]

Here, Miller links Web 2.0 technologies and the culture of participation that they engender to the field of library science, supporting his claim that there is now a "Library 2.0". Many of the other proponents of new 2.0s mentioned here use similar methods. The meaning of Web 2.0 is role dependent. For example, some use Web 2.0 to establish and maintain relationships through social networks, while some marketing managers might use this promising technology to "end-run traditionally unresponsive I.T. department[s]."[48]

There is a debate over the use of Web 2.0 technologies in mainstream education. Issues under consideration include the understanding of students' different learning modes; the conflicts between ideas entrenched in informal online communities and educational establishments' views on the production and authentication of 'formal' knowledge; and questions about privacy, plagiarism, shared authorship and the ownership of knowledge and information produced and/or published on line.[49]

Marketing

Web 2.0 is used by companies, non-profit organisations and governments for interactive marketing. A growing number of marketers are using Web 2.0 tools to collaborate with consumers on product development, customer service enhancement, product or service improvement and promotion. Companies can use Web 2.0 tools to improve collaboration with both its business partners and consumers. Among other things, company employees have created wikis—Websites that allow users to add, delete, and edit content — to list answers to frequently asked questions about each product, and consumers have added significant contributions.

Another marketing Web 2.0 lure is to make sure consumers can use the online community to network among themselves on topics of their own choosing.[50] Mainstream media usage of Web 2.0 is increasing. Saturating media hubs—like The New York Times, PC Magazine and Business Week — with links to popular new Web sites and services, is critical to achieving the threshold for mass adoption of those services.[51] User web content can be used to gauge consumer satisfaction. In a recent article for Bank Technology News, Shane Kite describes how Citigroup's Global Transaction Services unit monitors social media outlets to address customer issues and improve products.[52]

Destination marketing

In tourism industries, social media is an effective channel to attract travellers and promote tourism products and services by engaging with customers. The brand of tourist destinations can be built through marketing campaigns on social media and by engaging with customers. For example, the “Snow at First Sight” campaign launched by the State of Colorado aimed to bring brand awareness to Colorado as a winter destination. The campaign used social media platforms, for example, Facebook and Twitter, to promote this competition, and requested the participants to share experiences, pictures and videos on social media platforms. As a result, Colorado enhanced their image as a winter destination and created a campaign worth about $2.9 million.[citation needed]

The tourism organisation can earn brand royalty from interactive marketing campaigns on social media with engaging passive communication tactics. For example, “Moms” advisors of the Walt Disney World are responsible for offering suggestions and replying to questions about the family trips at Walt Disney World. Due to its characteristic of expertise in Disney, “Moms” was chosen to represent the campaign.[53] Social networking sites, such as Facebook, can be used as a platform for providing detailed information about the marketing campaign, as well as real-time online communication with customers. Korean Airline Tour created and maintained a relationship with customers by using Facebook for individual communication purposes.[54]

Travel 2.0 refers a model of Web 2.0 on tourism industries which provides virtual travel communities. The travel 2.0 model allows users to create their own content and exchange their words through globally interactive features on websites.[55][56] The users also can contribute their experiences, images and suggestions regarding their trips through online travel communities. For example, TripAdvisor is an online travel community which enables user to rate and share autonomously their reviews and feedback on hotels and tourist destinations. Non pre-associate users can interact socially and communicate through discussion forums on TripAdvisor.[57]

Social media, especially Travel 2.0 websites, plays a crucial role in decision-making behaviors of travelers. The user-generated content on social media tools have a significant impact on travelers choices and organisation preferences. Travel 2.0 sparked radical change in receiving information methods for travelers, from business-to-customer marketing into peer-to-peer reviews. User-generated content became a vital tool for helping a number of travelers manage their international travels, especially for first time visitors.[58] The travellers tend to trust and rely on peer-to-peer reviews and virtual communications on social media rather than the information provided by travel suppliers.[57][53]

In addition, an autonomous review feature on social media would help travelers reduce risks and uncertainties before the purchasing stages.[55][58] Social media is also a channel for customer complaints and negative feedback which can damage images and reputations of organisations and destinations.[58] For example, a majority of UK travellers read customer reviews before booking hotels, these hotels receiving negative feedback would be refrained by half of customers.[58]

Therefore, the organisations should develop strategic plans to handle and manage the negative feedback on social media. Although the user-generated content and rating systems on social media are out of a business' controls, the business can monitor those conversations and participate in communities to enhance customer loyalty and maintain customer relationships.[53]

Education

Web 2.0 could allow for more collaborative education. For example, blogs give students a public space to interact with one another and the content of the class.[59] Some studies suggest that Web 2.0 can increase the public's understanding of science, which could improve government policy decisions. A 2012 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison notes that "...the internet could be a crucial tool in increasing the general public’s level of science literacy. This increase could then lead to better communication between researchers and the public, more substantive discussion, and more informed policy decision."[60]

Web-based applications and desktops

Ajax has prompted the development of Web sites that mimic desktop applications, such as word processing, the spreadsheet, and slide-show presentation. WYSIWYG wiki and blogging sites replicate many features of PC authoring applications. Several browser-based services have emerged, including EyeOS[61] and YouOS.(No longer active.)[62] Although named operating systems, many of these services are application platforms. They mimic the user experience of desktop operating systems, offering features and applications similar to a PC environment, and are able to run within any modern browser. However, these so-called "operating systems" do not directly control the hardware on the client's computer. Numerous web-based application services appeared during the dot-com bubble of 1997–2001 and then vanished, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers.

Distribution of media

XML and RSS

Many regard syndication of site content as a Web 2.0 feature. Syndication uses standardized protocols to permit end-users to make use of a site's data in another context (such as another Web site, a browser plugin, or a separate desktop application). Protocols permitting syndication include RSS (really simple syndication, also known as Web syndication), RDF (as in RSS 1.1), and Atom, all of which are XML-based formats. Observers have started to refer to these technologies as Web feeds. Specialized protocols such as FOAF and XFN (both for social networking) extend the functionality of sites and permit end-users to interact without centralized Web sites.

Web APIs

Main article: Web API

Web 2.0 often uses machine-based interactions such as REST and SOAP. Servers often expose proprietary Application programming interfaces (API), but standard APIs (for example, for posting to a blog or notifying a blog update) have also come into use. Most communications through APIs involve XML or JSON payloads. REST APIs, through their use of self-descriptive messages and hypermedia as the engine of application state, should be self-describing once an entry URI is known. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) is the standard way of publishing a SOAP Application programming interface and there are a range of Web service specifications.

Trademark

In November 2004, CMP Media applied to the USPTO for a service mark on the use of the term "WEB 2.0" for live events.[63] On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a cease-and-desist demand to the Irish non-profit organisation IT@Cork on May 24, 2006,[64] but retracted it two days later.[65] The "WEB 2.0" service mark registration passed final PTO Examining Attorney review on May 10, 2006, and was registered on June 27, 2006.[63] The European Union application (which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland)[66] was declined on May 23, 2007.

Criticism

Critics of the term claim that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of the World Wide Web at all, but merely continues to use so-called "Web 1.0" technologies and concepts.[9] First, techniques such as Ajax do not replace underlying protocols like HTTP, but add a layer of abstraction on top of them. Second, many of the ideas of Web 2.0 were already featured in implementations on networked systems well before the term "Web 2.0" emerged. Amazon.com, for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in 2002.[67] Previous developments also came from research in computer-supported collaborative learning and computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) and from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino, all phenomena that preceded Web 2.0. Tim Berners-Lee, who developed the initial technologies of the Web, has been an outspoken critic of the term, while supporting many of the elements associated with it.[68] In the environment where the Web originated, each workstation had a dedicated IP address and always-on connection to the Internet. Sharing a file or publishing a web page was as simple as moving the file into a shared folder.[69]

Perhaps the most common criticism is that the term is unclear or simply a buzzword. For many people who work in software, version numbers like 2.0 and 3.0 are for software versioning or hardware versioning only, and to assign 2.0 arbitrarily to many technologies with a variety of real version numbers has no meaning. The web does not have a version number. For example, in a 2006 interview with IBM developerWorks podcast editor Scott Laningham, Tim Berners-Lee described the term "Web 2.0" as a jargon:[9]

"Nobody really knows what it means... If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along... Web 2.0, for some people, it means moving some of the thinking [to the] client side, so making it more immediate, but the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be... a collaborative space where people can interact."

Other critics labeled Web 2.0 "a second bubble" (referring to the Dot-com bubble of 1997–2000), suggesting that too many Web 2.0 companies attempt to develop the same product with a lack of business models. For example, The Economist has dubbed the mid- to late-2000s focus on Web companies as "Bubble 2.0".[70]

In terms of Web 2.0's social impact, critics such as Andrew Keen argue that Web 2.0 has created a cult of digital narcissism and amateurism, which undermines the notion of expertise by allowing anybody, anywhere to share and place undue value upon their own opinions about any subject and post any kind of content, regardless of their actual talent, knowledge, credentials, biases or possible hidden agendas. Keen's 2007 book, Cult of the Amateur, argues that the core assumption of Web 2.0, that all opinions and user-generated content are equally valuable and relevant, is misguided. Additionally, Sunday Times reviewer John Flintoff has characterized Web 2.0 as "creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity: uninformed political commentary, unseemly home videos, embarrassingly amateurish music, unreadable poems, essays and novels... [and that Wikipedia is full of] mistakes, half-truths and misunderstandings".[71] In a 1994 Wired interview, Steve Jobs, forecasting the future development of the web for personal publishing, said "The Web is great because that person can't foist anything on you-you have to go get it. They can make themselves available, but if nobody wants to look at their site, that's fine. To be honest, most people who have something to say get published now."[72] Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association has been vocal about his opposition to Web 2.0 due to the lack of expertise that it outwardly claims, though he believes that there is hope for the future.[73]

"The task before us is to extend into the digital world the virtues of authenticity, expertise, and scholarly apparatus that have evolved over the 500 years of print, virtues often absent in the manuscript age that preceded print".

There is also a growing body of critique of Web 2.0 from the perspective of political economy. Since, as Tim O'Reilly and John Batelle put it, Web 2.0 is based on the "customers... building your business for you,"[26] critics have argued that sites such as Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are exploiting the "free labor"[74] of user-created content.[75] Web 2.0 sites use Terms of Service agreements to claim perpetual licenses to user-generated content, and they use that content to create profiles of users to sell to marketers.[76] This is part of increased surveillance of user activity happening within Web 2.0 sites.[77] Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society argues that such data can be used by governments who want to monitor dissident citizens.[78] The rise of AJAX-driven web sites where much of the content must be rendered on the client has meant that users of older hardware are given worse performance versus a site purely composed of HTML, where the processing takes place on the server.[79] Accessibility for disabled or impaired users may also suffer in a Web 2.0 site.[80]

Others have noted that Web 2.0 technologies are tied to particular political ideologies. "Web 2.0 discourse is a conduit for the materialization of neoliberal ideology."[81] The technologies of Web 2.0 may also "function as a disciplining technology within the framework of a neoliberal political economy."[82]

When looking at Web 2.0 from a cultural convergence view, according to Henry Jenkins,[83] it can be problematic because the consumers are doing more and more work in order to entertain themselves. For instance, Twitter offers online tools for users to create their own tweet, in a way the users are doing all the work when it comes to producing media content.

See also

Application domains

References

  1. ^ Blank, Grant; Reisdorf, Bianca (2012-05-01). "The Participatory Web". Information. 15 (4): 537–554. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.665935. S2CID 143357345.
  2. ^ "What is Web 1.0? - Definition from Techopedia". Techopedia.com. from the original on 2018-07-13. Retrieved 2018-07-13.
  3. ^ a b DiNucci, Darcy (1999). "Fragmented Future" (PDF). Print. 53 (4): 32. (PDF) from the original on 2011-11-10. Retrieved 2011-11-04.
  4. ^ a b Graham, Paul (November 2005). "Web 2.0". from the original on 2012-10-10. Retrieved 2006-08-02. I first heard the phrase 'Web 2.0' in the name of the Web 2.0 conference in 2004.
  5. ^ a b c d O'Reilly, Tim (2005-09-30). "What Is Web 2.0". O'Reilly Network. from the original on 2013-04-24. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
  6. ^ Strickland, Jonathan (2007-12-28). "How Web 2.0 Works". computer.howstuffworks.com. from the original on 2015-02-17. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
  7. ^ Sykora, M. (2017). "Web 1.0 to Web 2.0: an observational study and empirical evidence for the historical r(evolution) of the social web". Int. J. Web Eng. Technol. doi:10.1504/IJWET.2017.084024.
  8. ^ "What is Web 1.0? - Definition from Techopedia". Techopedia.com. from the original on 2018-07-13. Retrieved 2018-07-13.
  9. ^ a b c "DeveloperWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee". IBM. 2006-07-28. from the original on 2012-08-21. Retrieved 2012-08-05.
  10. ^ "Berners-Lee on the read/write web". BBC News. 2005-08-09. from the original on 2012-09-01. Retrieved 2012-08-05.
  11. ^ Richardson, Will (2009). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms (2nd ed.). California: Corwin Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-4129-5972-8.
  12. ^ "What is Web 3.0? Webopedia Definition". www.webopedia.com. from the original on 2017-02-15. Retrieved 2017-02-15.
  13. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim; James Hendler; Ora Lassila (May 17, 2001). "The Semantic Web" (PDF). Scientific American. 410 (6832): 1023–4. Bibcode:2001SciAm.284e..34B. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0501-34. PMID 11323639. (PDF) from the original on October 1, 2018. Retrieved October 1, 2018.
  14. ^ Balachander Krishnamurthy, Graham Cormode (2 June 2008). "Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0". First Monday. 13 (6). from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 23 September 2014.
  15. ^ "Geocities – Dead Media Archive". cultureandcommunication.org. from the original on 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-09-23.
  16. ^ "So Long, GeoCities: We Forgot You Still Existed". 2009-04-23. from the original on 2014-10-17. Retrieved 2014-09-23.
  17. ^ Flew, Terry (2008). New Media: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. p. 19.
  18. ^ Viswanathan, Ganesh; Dutt Mathur, Punit; Yammiyavar, Pradeep (March 2010). "From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and beyond: Reviewing usability heuristic criteria taking music sites as case studies". IndiaHCI Conference. Mumbai. Retrieved 20 February 2015. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  19. ^ "Is there a Web 1.0?". HowStuffWorks. January 28, 2008. from the original on February 22, 2019. Retrieved February 15, 2019.
  20. ^ "The Right Size of Software". www.catb.org. from the original on 2015-06-17. Retrieved 2015-02-20.
  21. ^ Aced, Cristina. (2013). Web 2.0: the origin of the word that has changed the way we understand public relations.
  22. ^ Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. RSS: INJAN (It's not just about news). Blog. Blog Data Space. August 21
  23. ^ Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. Jeff Bezos Comments about Web Services. Blog. Blog Data Space. September 25. OpenLinkSW.com 2010-02-12 at the Wayback Machine
  24. ^ a b Knorr, Eric. 2003. The year of Web services. CIO, December 15.
  25. ^ Kshetri, Nir (2022-03-01). "Web 3.0 and the Metaverse Shaping Organizations' Brand and Product Strategies". IT Professional. 24 (2): 11–15. doi:10.1109/MITP.2022.3157206. ISSN 1520-9202.
  26. ^ a b O'Reilly, Tim, and John Battelle. 2004. Opening Welcome: State of the Internet Industry. In San Francisco, California, October 5.
  27. ^ O’Reilly, T., 2005.
  28. ^ Grossman, Lev. 2006. Person of the Year: You. December 25. Time.com 2009-09-23 at the Wayback Machine
  29. ^ Hinchcliffe, Dion (2006-04-02). . Web Services. Archived from the original on 2007-05-15. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
  30. ^ Perry, Ronen; Zarsky, Tal (2015-08-01). "Who Should Be Liable for Online Anonymous Defamation?". Rochester, NY. SSRN 2671399. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  31. ^ [SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=732483 Wireless Communications and Computing at a Crossroads: New Paradigms and Their Impact on Theories Governing the Public's Right to Spectrum Access], Patrick S. Ryan, Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 239, 2005.
  32. ^ Pal, Surendra Kumar. "Learn More About Web 2.0". academia.edu. Retrieved 2015-10-14. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  33. ^ Gerald Marwell and Ruth E. Ames: "Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. I. Resources, Interest, Group Size, and the Free-Rider Problem". The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (May, 1979), pp. 1335–1360
  34. ^ Best, D., 2006. Web 2.0 Next Big Thing or Next Big Internet Bubble? Lecture Web Information Systems. Techni sche Universiteit Eindhoven.
  35. ^ Greenmeier, Larry & Gaudin, Sharon. "Amid The Rush To Web 2.0, Some Words Of Warning – Web 2.0 – InformationWeek". www.informationweek.com. from the original on 2008-04-21. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
  36. ^ O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, p. 30
  37. ^ McAfee, A. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. MIT Sloan Management review. Vol. 47, No. 3, p. 21–28.
  38. ^ Hinchcliffe, Dion (November 5, 2006). . ZDNet blogs. Archived from the original on 2006-11-29.
  39. ^ Schick, S., 2005. I second that emotion. IT Business.ca (Canada).
  40. ^ Singer, Jonathan B. (2009). The Role and Regulations for Technology in Social Work Practice and E-Therapy: Social Work 2.0. In A. R. Roberts (Ed). New York, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-536937-3.
  41. ^ Breakenridge, Deirdre (2008). PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-13-270397-0.
  42. ^ "Classroom 2.0". from the original on 2010-09-22. Retrieved 2010-09-22.
  43. ^ Karp, Scott. "Publishing 2.0". Publishing2.com. from the original on 2011-02-06. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  44. ^ Medicine 2.0
  45. ^ Eggers, William D. (2005). . Lanham MD, U.S.A.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7425-4175-7. Archived from the original on 2009-02-17.
  46. ^ Rusak, Sergey (2009). . Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.: Progressive Advertiser. Archived from the original on March 3, 2010.
  47. ^ Miller 10–11
  48. ^ "i-Technology Viewpoint: It's Time to Take the Quotation Marks Off "Web 2.0" | Web 2.0 Journal". Web2.sys-con.com. from the original on 2011-02-16. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  49. ^ Anderson, Paul (2007). "What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education". JISC Technology and Standards Watch. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.108.9995.
  50. ^ Parise, Salvatore (2008-12-16). "The Secrets of Marketing in a Web 2.0 World". The Wall Street Journal. from the original on 2017-07-10. Retrieved 2017-08-08.
  51. ^ MacManus, Richard (2007). . Read Write Web. Archived from the original on 2011-08-11.
  52. ^ "Banks use Web 2.0 to increase customer retention". PNT Marketing Services. 2010. from the original on 2010-11-14. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
  53. ^ a b c Hudson, Simon; Thal, Karen (2013-01-01). "The Impact of Social Media on the Consumer Decision Process: Implications for Tourism Marketing". Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 30 (1–2): 156–160. doi:10.1080/10548408.2013.751276. ISSN 1054-8408. S2CID 154791353.
  54. ^ Park, Jongpil; Oh, Ick-Keun (2012-01-01). "A Case Study of Social Media Marketing by Travel Agency: The Salience of Social Media Marketing in the Tourism Industry". International Journal of Tourism Sciences. 12 (1): 93–106. doi:10.1080/15980634.2012.11434654. ISSN 1598-0634. S2CID 142955027.
  55. ^ a b Buhalis, Dimitrios; Law, Rob (2008). "Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the Internet—The state of eTourism research" (PDF). Tourism Management. 29 (4): 609–623. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.005. hdl:10397/527.
  56. ^ Milano, Roberta; Baggio, Rodolfo; Piattelli, Robert (2011-01-01). "The effects of online social media on tourism websites". Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2011. Springer, Vienna. pp. 471–483. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.454.3557. doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-0503-0_38. ISBN 978-3-7091-0502-3.
  57. ^ a b Miguens, J.; Baggio, R. (2008). "Social media and Tourism Destinations: TripAdvisor Case Study" (PDF). Advances in Tourism Research: 26–28. (PDF) from the original on 2017-08-30. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
  58. ^ a b c d Zeng, Benxiang; Gerritsen, Rolf (2014-04-01). "What do we know about social media in tourism? A review". Tourism Management Perspectives. 10: 27–36. doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2014.01.001.
  59. ^ Richardson, Will (2010). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Corwin Press. p. 171. ISBN 978-1-4129-7747-0.
  60. ^ Pete Ladwig; Kajsa E. Dalrymple; Dominique Brossard; Dietram A. Scheufele; Elizabeth A. Corley (2012). "Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding". Science and Public Policy. 39 (6): 761–774. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs048.
  61. ^ "Can eyeOS Succeed Where Desktop.com Failed?". www.techcrunch.com. from the original on 2007-12-12. Retrieved 2007-12-12.
  62. ^ "Tech Beat Hey YouOS! – BusinessWeek". www.businessweek.com. from the original on 2007-12-17. Retrieved 2007-12-12.
  63. ^ a b "USPTO serial number 78322306". Tarr.uspto.gov. from the original on 2011-01-13. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  64. ^ "O'Reilly and CMP Exercise Trademark on 'Web 2.0'". Slashdot. 2006-05-26. from the original on 2009-05-11. Retrieved 2006-05-27.
  65. ^ Torkington, Nathan (2006-05-26). . O'Reilly Radar. Archived from the original on 15 January 2008. Retrieved 2006-06-01.
  66. ^ "Application number 004972212". 2007. from the original on 2013-05-12. Retrieved 2010-03-22.
  67. ^ O'Reilly, Tim (2002-06-18). . O'Reilly Network. Archived from the original on 2006-06-13. Retrieved 2006-05-27.
  68. ^ "Tim Berners-Lee on Web 2.0: "nobody even knows what it means"". September 2006. from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-06-15. He's big on blogs and wikis, and has nothing but good things to say about AJAX, but Berners-Lee faults the term "Web 2.0" for lacking any coherent meaning.
  69. ^ "developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee". IBM. 2006-08-22. from the original on 2007-07-01. Retrieved 2007-06-04.
  70. ^ "Bubble 2.0". The Economist. 2005-12-22. from the original on 2006-11-19. Retrieved 2006-12-20.
  71. ^ Flintoff, JohnPaul (2007-06-03). "Thinking is so over". The Times. London. from the original on 2009-05-07. Retrieved 2009-06-05.
  72. ^ Wolf, Gary. "Steve Jobs: The Next Insanely Great Thing". Wired. from the original on 2015-04-18. Retrieved 2015-04-16.
  73. ^ Gorman, Michael. "Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part 1". from the original on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 26 April 2011.
  74. ^ Terranova, Tiziana (2000). "Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy". Social Text. 18 (2): 33–58. doi:10.1215/01642472-18-2_63-33. S2CID 153872482.
  75. ^ Peterson, Soren (2008). "Loser Generated Content: From Participation to Exploitation". First Monday. 13 (3). from the original on 2012-10-25. Retrieved 2012-04-28. Taylor, Astra (2014). The People's Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age. Metropolitan Books. ISBN 9780805093568.
  76. ^ Gehl, Robert (2011). "The Archive and the Processor: The Internal Logic of Web 2.0". New Media and Society. 13 (8): 1228–1244. doi:10.1177/1461444811401735. S2CID 38776985.
  77. ^ Andrejevic, Mark (2007). iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era. Lawrence, KS: U P of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1528-5.
  78. ^ Zittrain, Jonathan. "Minds for Sale". Berkman Center for the Internet and Society. from the original on 12 November 2011. Retrieved 13 April 2012.
  79. ^ "Accessibility in Web 2.0 technology". IBM. from the original on 2015-04-02. Retrieved 2014-09-15. In the Web application domain, making static Web pages accessible is relatively easy. But for Web 2.0 technology, dynamic content and fancy visual effects can make accessibility testing very difficult.
  80. ^ . Archived from the original on 24 August 2014. Web 2.0 applications or websites are often very difficult to control by users with assistive technology.
  81. ^ Marwick, Alice (2010). "Status Update: Celebrity, publicity and Self-Branding in Web 2.0" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-06. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  82. ^ Jarrett, Kylie (2008). "Interactivity Is Evil! A Critical Investigation of Web 2.0" (PDF). First Monday. 13 (3). doi:10.5210/fm.v13i3.2140.
  83. ^ Jenkins, Henry (2008). "Convergence Culture". The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. 14 (1): 5–12. doi:10.1177/1354856507084415.

External links

 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Web 2.0.
  •   Learning materials related to Web 2.0 at Wikiversity
 
Scholia has a profile for Web 2.0 (Q131164).
  • Web 2.0 / Social Media / Social Networks. Charleston, South Carolina, SUA: MultiMedia. 2017. ISBN 978-1-544-63831-7.

January 13, 2023
also, known, participative, participatory, social, refers, websites, that, emphasize, user, generated, content, ease, participatory, culture, interoperability, compatibility, with, other, products, systems, devices, users, cloud, typical, phenomenon, itself, p. Web 2 0 also known as participative or participatory 1 web and social web 2 refers to websites that emphasize user generated content ease of use participatory culture and interoperability i e compatibility with other products systems and devices for end users A tag cloud a typical Web 2 0 phenomenon in itself presenting Web 2 0 themes The term was coined by Darcy DiNucci in 1999 3 and later popularized by Tim O Reilly and Dale Dougherty at the first Web 2 0 Conference in 2004 4 5 6 Although the term mimics the numbering of software versions it does not denote a formal change in the nature of the World Wide Web 7 but merely describes a general change that occurred during this period as interactive websites proliferated and came to overshadow the older more static websites of the original Web 8 A Web 2 0 website allows users to interact and collaborate with each other through social media dialogue as creators of user generated content in a virtual community This contrasts the first generation of Web 1 0 era websites where people were limited to viewing content in a passive manner Examples of Web 2 0 features include social networking sites or social media sites e g Facebook blogs wikis folksonomies tagging keywords on websites and links video sharing sites e g YouTube image sharing sites e g Flickr hosted services Web applications apps collaborative consumption platforms and mashup applications Whether Web 2 0 is substantially different from prior Web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners Lee who describes the term as jargon 9 His original vision of the Web was a collaborative medium a place where we could all meet and read and write 10 11 On the other hand the term Semantic Web sometimes referred to as Web 3 0 12 was coined by Berners Lee to refer to a web of content where the meaning can be processed by machines 13 Contents 1 History 1 1 Web 1 0 1 1 1 Characteristics 1 2 Web 2 0 1 2 1 Characteristics 2 Technologies 3 Concepts 4 Social Web 4 1 Marketing 4 1 1 Destination marketing 5 Education 6 Web based applications and desktops 7 Distribution of media 7 1 XML and RSS 7 2 Web APIs 8 Trademark 9 Criticism 10 See also 11 References 12 External linksHistory EditMain article History of the World Wide Web Web 1 0 Edit Web 1 0 is a retronym referring to the first stage of the World Wide Web s evolution from roughly 1991 to 2004 According to Graham Cormode and Balachander Krishnamurthy content creators were few in Web 1 0 with the vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content 14 Personal web pages were common consisting mainly of static pages hosted on ISP run web servers or on free web hosting services such as Tripod and the now defunct GeoCities 15 16 With Web 2 0 it became common for average web users to have social networking profiles on sites such as Myspace and Facebook and personal blogs sites like Blogger Tumblr and LiveJournal through either a low cost web hosting service or through a dedicated host In general content was generated dynamically allowing readers to comment directly on pages in a way that was not common previously citation needed Some Web 2 0 capabilities were present in the days of Web 1 0 but were implemented differently For example a Web 1 0 site may have had a guestbook page for visitor comments instead of a comment section at the end of each page typical of Web 2 0 During Web 1 0 server performance and bandwidth had to be considered lengthy comment threads on multiple pages could potentially slow down an entire site Terry Flew in his third edition of New Media described the differences between Web 1 0 and Web 2 0 as a move from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation from publishing to participation from web content as the outcome of large up front investment to an ongoing and interactive process and from content management systems to links based on tagging website content using keywords folksonomy Flew believed these factors formed the trends that resulted in the onset of the Web 2 0 craze 17 Characteristics Edit Some common design elements of a Web 1 0 site include 18 Static pages rather than dynamic HTML 19 Content provided from the server s filesystem rather than a relational database management system RDBMS Pages built using Server Side Includes or Common Gateway Interface CGI instead of a web application written in a dynamic programming language such as Perl PHP Python or Ruby clarification needed The use of HTML 3 2 era elements such as frames and tables to position and align elements on a page These were often used in combination with spacer GIFs citation needed Proprietary HTML extensions such as the lt blink gt and lt marquee gt tags introduced during the first browser war Online guestbooks GIF buttons graphics typically 88 31 pixels in size promoting web browsers operating systems text editors and various other products HTML forms sent via email Support for server side scripting was rare on shared servers during this period To provide a feedback mechanism for web site visitors mailto forms were used A user would fill in a form and upon clicking the form s submit button their email client would launch and attempt to send an email containing the form s details The popularity and complications of the mailto protocol led browser developers to incorporate email clients into their browsers 20 Web 2 0 Edit The term Web 2 0 was coined by Darcy DiNucci an information architecture consultant in her January 1999 article Fragmented Future 3 21 The Web we know now which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls is only an embryo of the Web to come The first glimmerings of Web 2 0 are beginning to appear and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop The Web will be understood not as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism the ether through which interactivity happens It will appear on your computer screen on your TV set your car dashboard your cell phone hand held game machines maybe even your microwave oven Writing when Palm Inc introduced its first web capable personal digital assistant supporting Web access with WAP DiNucci saw the Web fragmenting into a future that extended beyond the browser PC combination it was identified with She focused on how the basic information structure and hyper linking mechanism introduced by HTTP would be used by a variety of devices and platforms As such her 2 0 designation refers to the next version of the Web that does not directly relate to the term s current use The term Web 2 0 did not resurface until 2002 22 23 24 Such as Amazon Facebook Twitter and Google made it easy to con nect and engage in online transactions Web 2 0 introduced new features such as multimedia content and interactive web applications which mainly consisted of two dimensional screens 25 Kinsley and Eric focus on the concepts currently associated with the term where as Scott Dietzen puts it the Web becomes a universal standards based integration platform 24 In 2004 the term began to popularize when O Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2 0 conference In their opening remarks John Battelle and Tim O Reilly outlined their definition of the Web as Platform where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop The unique aspect of this migration they argued is that customers are building your business for you 26 They argued that the activities of users generating content in the form of ideas text videos or pictures could be harnessed to create value O Reilly and Battelle contrasted Web 2 0 with what they called Web 1 0 They associated this term with the business models of Netscape and the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online For example Netscape framed the web as platform in terms of the old software paradigm their flagship product was the web browser a desktop application and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high priced server products Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would in theory give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market Much like the horseless carriage framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar Netscape promoted a webtop to replace the desktop and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers 27 In short Netscape focused on creating software releasing updates and bug fixes and distributing it to the end users O Reilly contrasted this with Google a company that did not at the time focus on producing end user software but instead on providing a service based on data such as the links that Web page authors make between sites Google exploits this user generated content to offer Web searches based on reputation through its PageRank algorithm Unlike software which undergoes scheduled releases such services are constantly updated a process called the perpetual beta A similar difference can be seen between the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online and Wikipedia while the Britannica relies upon experts to write articles and release them periodically in publications Wikipedia relies on trust in sometimes anonymous community members to constantly write and edit content Wikipedia editors are not required to have educational credentials such as degrees in the subjects in which they are editing Wikipedia is not based on subject matter expertise but rather on an adaptation of the open source software adage given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow This maxim is stating that if enough users are able to look at a software product s code or a website then these users will be able to fix any bugs or other problems The Wikipedia volunteer editor community produces edits and updates articles constantly Web 2 0 conferences have been held every year since 2004 attracting entrepreneurs representatives from large companies tech experts and technology reporters The popularity of Web 2 0 was acknowledged by 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year You 28 That is TIME selected the masses of users who were participating in content creation on social networks blogs wikis and media sharing sites In the cover story Lev Grossman explains It s a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before It s about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million channel people s network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace It s about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world but also change the way the world changes Characteristics Edit Instead of merely reading a Web 2 0 site a user is invited to contribute to the site s content by commenting on published articles or creating a user account or profile on the site which may enable increased participation By increasing emphasis on these already extant capabilities they encourage users to rely more on their browser for user interface application software apps and file storage facilities This has been called network as platform computing 5 Major features of Web 2 0 include social networking websites self publishing platforms e g WordPress easy to use blog and website creation tools tagging which enables users to label websites videos or photos in some fashion like buttons which enable a user to indicate that they are pleased by online content and social bookmarking Users can provide the data and exercise some control over what they share on a Web 2 0 site 5 29 These sites may have an architecture of participation that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it 4 5 Users can add value in many ways such as uploading their own content on blogs consumer evaluation platforms e g Amazon and eBay news websites e g responding in the comment section social networking services media sharing websites e g YouTube and Instagram and collaborative writing projects 30 Some scholars argue that cloud computing is an example of Web 2 0 because it is simply an implication of computing on the Internet 31 Edit box interface through which anyone could edit a Wikipedia article Web 2 0 offers almost all users the same freedom to contribute 32 While this opens the possibility for serious debate and collaboration it also increases the incidence of spamming trolling and can even create a venue for hate speech cyberbullying and defamation The impossibility of excluding group members who do not contribute to the provision of goods i e to the creation of a user generated website from sharing the benefits of using the website gives rise to the possibility that serious members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and free ride on the contributions of others 33 This requires what is sometimes called radical trust by the management of the Web site According to Best 34 the characteristics of Web 2 0 are rich user experience user participation dynamic content metadata Web standards and scalability Further characteristics such as openness freedom 35 and collective intelligence 36 by way of user participation can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2 0 Some websites require users to contribute user generated content to have access to the website to discourage free riding A list of ways that people can volunteer to improve Mass Effect Wiki on Wikia an example of content generated by users working collaboratively The key features of Web 2 0 include citation needed Folksonomy free classification of information allows users to collectively classify and find information e g tagging of websites images videos or links Rich user experience dynamic content that is responsive to user input e g a user can click on an image to enlarge it or find out more information User participation information flows two ways between the site owner and site users by means of evaluation review and online commenting Site users also typically create user generated content for others to see e g Wikipedia an online encyclopedia that anyone can write articles for or edit Software as a service SaaS Web 2 0 sites developed APIs to allow automated usage such as by a Web app software application or a mashup Mass participation near universal web access leads to differentiation of concerns from the traditional Internet user base who tended to be hackers and computer hobbyists to a wider variety of users drastically changing the audience of internet users Technologies EditThe client side Web browser technologies used in Web 2 0 development include Ajax and JavaScript frameworks Ajax programming uses JavaScript and the Document Object Model DOM to update selected regions of the page area without undergoing a full page reload To allow users to continue interacting with the page communications such as data requests going to the server are separated from data coming back to the page asynchronously Otherwise the user would have to routinely wait for the data to come back before they can do anything else on that page just as a user has to wait for a page to complete the reload This also increases the overall performance of the site as the sending of requests can complete quicker independent of blocking and queueing required to send data back to the client The data fetched by an Ajax request is typically formatted in XML or JSON JavaScript Object Notation format two widely used structured data formats Since both of these formats are natively understood by JavaScript a programmer can easily use them to transmit structured data in their Web application When this data is received via Ajax the JavaScript program then uses the Document Object Model to dynamically update the Web page based on the new data allowing for rapid and interactive user experience In short using these techniques web designers can make their pages function like desktop applications For example Google Docs uses this technique to create a Web based word processor As a widely available plug in independent of W3C standards the World Wide Web Consortium is the governing body of Web standards and protocols Adobe Flash was capable of doing many things that were not possible pre HTML5 Of Flash s many capabilities the most commonly used was its ability to integrate streaming multimedia into HTML pages With the introduction of HTML5 in 2010 and the growing concerns with Flash s security the role of Flash became obsolete with browser support ending on December 31 2020 In addition to Flash and Ajax JavaScript Ajax frameworks have recently become a very popular means of creating Web 2 0 sites At their core these frameworks use the same technology as JavaScript Ajax and the DOM However frameworks smooth over inconsistencies between Web browsers and extend the functionality available to developers Many of them also come with customizable prefabricated widgets that accomplish such common tasks as picking a date from a calendar displaying a data chart or making a tabbed panel On the server side Web 2 0 uses many of the same technologies as Web 1 0 Languages such as Perl PHP Python Ruby as well as Enterprise Java J2EE and Microsoft NET Framework are used by developers to output data dynamically using information from files and databases This allows websites and web services to share machine readable formats such as XML Atom RSS etc and JSON When data is available in one of these formats another website can use it to integrate a portion of that site s functionality Concepts EditWeb 2 0 can be described in three parts Rich web application defines the experience brought from desktop to browser whether it is rich from a graphical point of view or a usability interactivity or features point of view contradictory Web oriented architecture WOA defines how Web 2 0 applications expose their functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate the functionality providing a set of much richer applications Examples are feeds RSS feeds web services mashups Social Web defines how Web 2 0 websites tend to interact much more with the end user and make the end user an integral part of the website either by adding his or her profile adding comments on content uploading new content or adding user generated content e g personal digital photos As such Web 2 0 draws together the capabilities of client and server side software content syndication and the use of network protocols Standards oriented Web browsers may use plug ins and software extensions to handle the content and user interactions Web 2 0 sites provide users with information storage creation and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment known as Web 1 0 Web 2 0 sites include the following features and techniques referred to as the acronym SLATES by Andrew McAfee 37 Search Finding information through keyword search Links to other websites Connects information sources together using the model of the Web Authoring The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many authors Wiki users may extend undo redo and edit each other s work Comment systems allow readers to contribute their viewpoints Tags Categorization of content by users adding tags short usually one word or two word descriptions to facilitate searching For example a user can tag a metal song as death metal Collections of tags created by many users within a single system may be referred to as folksonomies i e folk taxonomies Extensions Software that makes the Web an application platform as well as a document server Examples include Adobe Reader Adobe Flash Microsoft Silverlight ActiveX Oracle Java QuickTime WPS Office and Windows Media Signals The use of syndication technology such as RSS feeds to notify users of content changes While SLATES forms the basic framework of Enterprise 2 0 it does not contradict all of the higher level Web 2 0 design patterns and business models It includes discussions of self service IT the long tail of enterprise IT demand and many other consequences of the Web 2 0 era in enterprise uses 38 Social Web EditA third important part of Web 2 0 is the social web The social Web consists of a number of online tools and platforms where people share their perspectives opinions thoughts and experiences Web 2 0 applications tend to interact much more with the end user As such the end user is not only a user of the application but also a participant by Podcasting Blogging Tagging Curating with RSS Social bookmarking Social networking Social media Wikis Web content voting Review site or Rating siteThe popularity of the term Web 2 0 along with the increasing use of blogs wikis and social networking technologies has led many in academia and business to append a flurry of 2 0 s to existing concepts and fields of study 39 including Library 2 0 Social Work 2 0 40 Enterprise 2 0 PR 2 0 41 Classroom 2 0 42 Publishing 2 0 43 Medicine 2 0 44 Telco 2 0 Travel 2 0 Government 2 0 45 and even Porn 2 0 46 Many of these 2 0s refer to Web 2 0 technologies as the source of the new version in their respective disciplines and areas For example in the Talis white paper Library 2 0 The Challenge of Disruptive Innovation Paul Miller argues Blogs wikis and RSS are often held up as exemplary manifestations of Web 2 0 A reader of a blog or a wiki is provided with tools to add a comment or even in the case of the wiki to edit the content This is what we call the Read Write web Talis believes that Library 2 0 means harnessing this type of participation so that libraries can benefit from increasingly rich collaborative cataloging efforts such as including contributions from partner libraries as well as adding rich enhancements such as book jackets or movie files to records from publishers and others 47 Here Miller links Web 2 0 technologies and the culture of participation that they engender to the field of library science supporting his claim that there is now a Library 2 0 Many of the other proponents of new 2 0s mentioned here use similar methods The meaning of Web 2 0 is role dependent For example some use Web 2 0 to establish and maintain relationships through social networks while some marketing managers might use this promising technology to end run traditionally unresponsive I T department s 48 There is a debate over the use of Web 2 0 technologies in mainstream education Issues under consideration include the understanding of students different learning modes the conflicts between ideas entrenched in informal online communities and educational establishments views on the production and authentication of formal knowledge and questions about privacy plagiarism shared authorship and the ownership of knowledge and information produced and or published on line 49 Marketing Edit Web 2 0 is used by companies non profit organisations and governments for interactive marketing A growing number of marketers are using Web 2 0 tools to collaborate with consumers on product development customer service enhancement product or service improvement and promotion Companies can use Web 2 0 tools to improve collaboration with both its business partners and consumers Among other things company employees have created wikis Websites that allow users to add delete and edit content to list answers to frequently asked questions about each product and consumers have added significant contributions Another marketing Web 2 0 lure is to make sure consumers can use the online community to network among themselves on topics of their own choosing 50 Mainstream media usage of Web 2 0 is increasing Saturating media hubs like The New York Times PC Magazine and Business Week with links to popular new Web sites and services is critical to achieving the threshold for mass adoption of those services 51 User web content can be used to gauge consumer satisfaction In a recent article for Bank Technology News Shane Kite describes how Citigroup s Global Transaction Services unit monitors social media outlets to address customer issues and improve products 52 Destination marketing Edit In tourism industries social media is an effective channel to attract travellers and promote tourism products and services by engaging with customers The brand of tourist destinations can be built through marketing campaigns on social media and by engaging with customers For example the Snow at First Sight campaign launched by the State of Colorado aimed to bring brand awareness to Colorado as a winter destination The campaign used social media platforms for example Facebook and Twitter to promote this competition and requested the participants to share experiences pictures and videos on social media platforms As a result Colorado enhanced their image as a winter destination and created a campaign worth about 2 9 million citation needed The tourism organisation can earn brand royalty from interactive marketing campaigns on social media with engaging passive communication tactics For example Moms advisors of the Walt Disney World are responsible for offering suggestions and replying to questions about the family trips at Walt Disney World Due to its characteristic of expertise in Disney Moms was chosen to represent the campaign 53 Social networking sites such as Facebook can be used as a platform for providing detailed information about the marketing campaign as well as real time online communication with customers Korean Airline Tour created and maintained a relationship with customers by using Facebook for individual communication purposes 54 Travel 2 0 refers a model of Web 2 0 on tourism industries which provides virtual travel communities The travel 2 0 model allows users to create their own content and exchange their words through globally interactive features on websites 55 56 The users also can contribute their experiences images and suggestions regarding their trips through online travel communities For example TripAdvisor is an online travel community which enables user to rate and share autonomously their reviews and feedback on hotels and tourist destinations Non pre associate users can interact socially and communicate through discussion forums on TripAdvisor 57 Social media especially Travel 2 0 websites plays a crucial role in decision making behaviors of travelers The user generated content on social media tools have a significant impact on travelers choices and organisation preferences Travel 2 0 sparked radical change in receiving information methods for travelers from business to customer marketing into peer to peer reviews User generated content became a vital tool for helping a number of travelers manage their international travels especially for first time visitors 58 The travellers tend to trust and rely on peer to peer reviews and virtual communications on social media rather than the information provided by travel suppliers 57 53 In addition an autonomous review feature on social media would help travelers reduce risks and uncertainties before the purchasing stages 55 58 Social media is also a channel for customer complaints and negative feedback which can damage images and reputations of organisations and destinations 58 For example a majority of UK travellers read customer reviews before booking hotels these hotels receiving negative feedback would be refrained by half of customers 58 Therefore the organisations should develop strategic plans to handle and manage the negative feedback on social media Although the user generated content and rating systems on social media are out of a business controls the business can monitor those conversations and participate in communities to enhance customer loyalty and maintain customer relationships 53 Education EditWeb 2 0 could allow for more collaborative education For example blogs give students a public space to interact with one another and the content of the class 59 Some studies suggest that Web 2 0 can increase the public s understanding of science which could improve government policy decisions A 2012 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin Madison notes that the internet could be a crucial tool in increasing the general public s level of science literacy This increase could then lead to better communication between researchers and the public more substantive discussion and more informed policy decision 60 Web based applications and desktops EditAjax has prompted the development of Web sites that mimic desktop applications such as word processing the spreadsheet and slide show presentation WYSIWYG wiki and blogging sites replicate many features of PC authoring applications Several browser based services have emerged including EyeOS 61 and YouOS No longer active 62 Although named operating systems many of these services are application platforms They mimic the user experience of desktop operating systems offering features and applications similar to a PC environment and are able to run within any modern browser However these so called operating systems do not directly control the hardware on the client s computer Numerous web based application services appeared during the dot com bubble of 1997 2001 and then vanished having failed to gain a critical mass of customers Distribution of media EditXML and RSS Edit Many regard syndication of site content as a Web 2 0 feature Syndication uses standardized protocols to permit end users to make use of a site s data in another context such as another Web site a browser plugin or a separate desktop application Protocols permitting syndication include RSS really simple syndication also known as Web syndication RDF as in RSS 1 1 and Atom all of which are XML based formats Observers have started to refer to these technologies as Web feeds Specialized protocols such as FOAF and XFN both for social networking extend the functionality of sites and permit end users to interact without centralized Web sites Web APIs Edit Main article Web API Web 2 0 often uses machine based interactions such as REST and SOAP Servers often expose proprietary Application programming interfaces API but standard APIs for example for posting to a blog or notifying a blog update have also come into use Most communications through APIs involve XML or JSON payloads REST APIs through their use of self descriptive messages and hypermedia as the engine of application state should be self describing once an entry URI is known Web Services Description Language WSDL is the standard way of publishing a SOAP Application programming interface and there are a range of Web service specifications Trademark EditIn November 2004 CMP Media applied to the USPTO for a service mark on the use of the term WEB 2 0 for live events 63 On the basis of this application CMP Media sent a cease and desist demand to the Irish non profit organisation IT Cork on May 24 2006 64 but retracted it two days later 65 The WEB 2 0 service mark registration passed final PTO Examining Attorney review on May 10 2006 and was registered on June 27 2006 63 The European Union application which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland 66 was declined on May 23 2007 Criticism EditCritics of the term claim that Web 2 0 does not represent a new version of the World Wide Web at all but merely continues to use so called Web 1 0 technologies and concepts 9 First techniques such as Ajax do not replace underlying protocols like HTTP but add a layer of abstraction on top of them Second many of the ideas of Web 2 0 were already featured in implementations on networked systems well before the term Web 2 0 emerged Amazon com for instance has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its launch in 1995 in a form of self publishing Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in 2002 67 Previous developments also came from research in computer supported collaborative learning and computer supported cooperative work CSCW and from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino all phenomena that preceded Web 2 0 Tim Berners Lee who developed the initial technologies of the Web has been an outspoken critic of the term while supporting many of the elements associated with it 68 In the environment where the Web originated each workstation had a dedicated IP address and always on connection to the Internet Sharing a file or publishing a web page was as simple as moving the file into a shared folder 69 Perhaps the most common criticism is that the term is unclear or simply a buzzword For many people who work in software version numbers like 2 0 and 3 0 are for software versioning or hardware versioning only and to assign 2 0 arbitrarily to many technologies with a variety of real version numbers has no meaning The web does not have a version number For example in a 2006 interview with IBM developerWorks podcast editor Scott Laningham Tim Berners Lee described the term Web 2 0 as a jargon 9 Nobody really knows what it means If Web 2 0 for you is blogs and wikis then that is people to people But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along Web 2 0 for some people it means moving some of the thinking to the client side so making it more immediate but the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is That was what it was designed to be a collaborative space where people can interact Other critics labeled Web 2 0 a second bubble referring to the Dot com bubble of 1997 2000 suggesting that too many Web 2 0 companies attempt to develop the same product with a lack of business models For example The Economist has dubbed the mid to late 2000s focus on Web companies as Bubble 2 0 70 In terms of Web 2 0 s social impact critics such as Andrew Keen argue that Web 2 0 has created a cult of digital narcissism and amateurism which undermines the notion of expertise by allowing anybody anywhere to share and place undue value upon their own opinions about any subject and post any kind of content regardless of their actual talent knowledge credentials biases or possible hidden agendas Keen s 2007 book Cult of the Amateur argues that the core assumption of Web 2 0 that all opinions and user generated content are equally valuable and relevant is misguided Additionally Sunday Times reviewer John Flintoff has characterized Web 2 0 as creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity uninformed political commentary unseemly home videos embarrassingly amateurish music unreadable poems essays and novels and that Wikipedia is full of mistakes half truths and misunderstandings 71 In a 1994 Wired interview Steve Jobs forecasting the future development of the web for personal publishing said The Web is great because that person can t foist anything on you you have to go get it They can make themselves available but if nobody wants to look at their site that s fine To be honest most people who have something to say get published now 72 Michael Gorman former president of the American Library Association has been vocal about his opposition to Web 2 0 due to the lack of expertise that it outwardly claims though he believes that there is hope for the future 73 The task before us is to extend into the digital world the virtues of authenticity expertise and scholarly apparatus that have evolved over the 500 years of print virtues often absent in the manuscript age that preceded print There is also a growing body of critique of Web 2 0 from the perspective of political economy Since as Tim O Reilly and John Batelle put it Web 2 0 is based on the customers building your business for you 26 critics have argued that sites such as Google Facebook YouTube and Twitter are exploiting the free labor 74 of user created content 75 Web 2 0 sites use Terms of Service agreements to claim perpetual licenses to user generated content and they use that content to create profiles of users to sell to marketers 76 This is part of increased surveillance of user activity happening within Web 2 0 sites 77 Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard s Berkman Center for the Internet and Society argues that such data can be used by governments who want to monitor dissident citizens 78 The rise of AJAX driven web sites where much of the content must be rendered on the client has meant that users of older hardware are given worse performance versus a site purely composed of HTML where the processing takes place on the server 79 Accessibility for disabled or impaired users may also suffer in a Web 2 0 site 80 Others have noted that Web 2 0 technologies are tied to particular political ideologies Web 2 0 discourse is a conduit for the materialization of neoliberal ideology 81 The technologies of Web 2 0 may also function as a disciplining technology within the framework of a neoliberal political economy 82 When looking at Web 2 0 from a cultural convergence view according to Henry Jenkins 83 it can be problematic because the consumers are doing more and more work in order to entertain themselves For instance Twitter offers online tools for users to create their own tweet in a way the users are doing all the work when it comes to producing media content See also EditCloud computing Collective intelligence Connectivity of social media Crowd computing Enterprise social software Mass collaboration New media Office suite Open source governance Privacy issues of social networking sites Responsive web design Social commerce Social shopping Web 2 0 for development web2fordev Web 3 0 You Time Person of the Year Libraries in Second Life List of free software for Web 2 0 Services Cute cat theory of digital activism Web3 Application domainsSci Mate Business 2 0 E learning 2 0 e Government Government 2 0 Health 2 0 Science 2 0References Edit Blank Grant Reisdorf Bianca 2012 05 01 The Participatory Web Information 15 4 537 554 doi 10 1080 1369118X 2012 665935 S2CID 143357345 What is Web 1 0 Definition from Techopedia Techopedia com Archived from the original on 2018 07 13 Retrieved 2018 07 13 a b DiNucci Darcy 1999 Fragmented Future PDF Print 53 4 32 Archived PDF from the original on 2011 11 10 Retrieved 2011 11 04 a b Graham Paul November 2005 Web 2 0 Archived from the original on 2012 10 10 Retrieved 2006 08 02 I first heard the phrase Web 2 0 in the name of the Web 2 0 conference in 2004 a b c d O Reilly Tim 2005 09 30 What Is Web 2 0 O Reilly Network Archived from the original on 2013 04 24 Retrieved 2006 08 06 Strickland Jonathan 2007 12 28 How Web 2 0 Works computer howstuffworks com Archived from the original on 2015 02 17 Retrieved 2015 02 28 Sykora M 2017 Web 1 0 to Web 2 0 an observational study and empirical evidence for the historical r evolution of the social web Int J Web Eng Technol doi 10 1504 IJWET 2017 084024 What is Web 1 0 Definition from Techopedia Techopedia com Archived from the original on 2018 07 13 Retrieved 2018 07 13 a b c DeveloperWorks Interviews Tim Berners Lee IBM 2006 07 28 Archived from the original on 2012 08 21 Retrieved 2012 08 05 Berners Lee on the read write web BBC News 2005 08 09 Archived from the original on 2012 09 01 Retrieved 2012 08 05 Richardson Will 2009 Blogs Wikis Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms 2nd ed California Corwin Press p 1 ISBN 978 1 4129 5972 8 What is Web 3 0 Webopedia Definition www webopedia com Archived from the original on 2017 02 15 Retrieved 2017 02 15 Berners Lee Tim James Hendler Ora Lassila May 17 2001 The Semantic Web PDF Scientific American 410 6832 1023 4 Bibcode 2001SciAm 284e 34B doi 10 1038 scientificamerican0501 34 PMID 11323639 Archived PDF from the original on October 1 2018 Retrieved October 1 2018 Balachander Krishnamurthy Graham Cormode 2 June 2008 Key differences between Web 1 0 and Web 2 0 First Monday 13 6 Archived from the original on 25 October 2012 Retrieved 23 September 2014 Geocities Dead Media Archive cultureandcommunication org Archived from the original on 2014 05 24 Retrieved 2014 09 23 So Long GeoCities We Forgot You Still Existed 2009 04 23 Archived from the original on 2014 10 17 Retrieved 2014 09 23 Flew Terry 2008 New Media An Introduction 3rd ed Melbourne Oxford University Press p 19 Viswanathan Ganesh Dutt Mathur Punit Yammiyavar Pradeep March 2010 From Web 1 0 to Web 2 0 and beyond Reviewing usability heuristic criteria taking music sites as case studies IndiaHCI Conference Mumbai Retrieved 20 February 2015 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a Cite journal requires journal help Is there a Web 1 0 HowStuffWorks January 28 2008 Archived from the original on February 22 2019 Retrieved February 15 2019 The Right Size of Software www catb org Archived from the original on 2015 06 17 Retrieved 2015 02 20 Aced Cristina 2013 Web 2 0 the origin of the word that has changed the way we understand public relations Idehen Kingsley 2003 RSS INJAN It s not just about news Blog Blog Data Space August 21 OpenLinkSW com Idehen Kingsley 2003 Jeff Bezos Comments about Web Services Blog Blog Data Space September 25 OpenLinkSW com Archived 2010 02 12 at the Wayback Machine a b Knorr Eric 2003 The year of Web services CIO December 15 Kshetri Nir 2022 03 01 Web 3 0 and the Metaverse Shaping Organizations Brand and Product Strategies IT Professional 24 2 11 15 doi 10 1109 MITP 2022 3157206 ISSN 1520 9202 a b O Reilly Tim and John Battelle 2004 Opening Welcome State of the Internet Industry In San Francisco California October 5 O Reilly T 2005 Grossman Lev 2006 Person of the Year You December 25 Time com Archived 2009 09 23 at the Wayback Machine Hinchcliffe Dion 2006 04 02 The State of Web 2 0 Web Services Archived from the original on 2007 05 15 Retrieved 2006 08 06 Perry Ronen Zarsky Tal 2015 08 01 Who Should Be Liable for Online Anonymous Defamation Rochester NY SSRN 2671399 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a Cite journal requires journal help SSRN http ssrn com abstract 732483 Wireless Communications and Computing at a Crossroads New Paradigms and Their Impact on Theories Governing the Public s Right to Spectrum Access Patrick S Ryan Journal on Telecommunications amp High Technology Law Vol 3 No 2 p 239 2005 Pal Surendra Kumar Learn More About Web 2 0 academia edu Retrieved 2015 10 14 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a Cite journal requires journal help Gerald Marwell and Ruth E Ames Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods I Resources Interest Group Size and the Free Rider Problem The American Journal of Sociology Vol 84 No 6 May 1979 pp 1335 1360 Best D 2006 Web 2 0 Next Big Thing or Next Big Internet Bubble Lecture Web Information Systems Techni sche Universiteit Eindhoven Greenmeier Larry amp Gaudin Sharon Amid The Rush To Web 2 0 Some Words Of Warning Web 2 0 InformationWeek www informationweek com Archived from the original on 2008 04 21 Retrieved 2008 04 04 O Reilly T 2005 What is Web 2 0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software p 30 McAfee A 2006 Enterprise 2 0 The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration MIT Sloan Management review Vol 47 No 3 p 21 28 Hinchcliffe Dion November 5 2006 Web 2 0 definition updated and Enterprise 2 0 emerges ZDNet blogs Archived from the original on 2006 11 29 Schick S 2005 I second that emotion IT Business ca Canada Singer Jonathan B 2009 The Role and Regulations for Technology in Social Work Practice and E Therapy Social Work 2 0 In A R Roberts Ed New York U S A Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 19 536937 3 Breakenridge Deirdre 2008 PR 2 0 New Media New Tools New Audiences Pearson Education ISBN 978 0 13 270397 0 Classroom 2 0 Archived from the original on 2010 09 22 Retrieved 2010 09 22 Karp Scott Publishing 2 0 Publishing2 com Archived from the original on 2011 02 06 Retrieved 2011 02 06 Medicine 2 0 Eggers William D 2005 Government 2 0 Using Technology to Improve Education Cut Red Tape Reduce Gridlock and Enhance Democracy Lanham MD U S A Rowman amp Littlefield Publishers Inc ISBN 978 0 7425 4175 7 Archived from the original on 2009 02 17 Rusak Sergey 2009 Web 2 0 Becoming An Outdated Term Boston Massachusetts U S A Progressive Advertiser Archived from the original on March 3 2010 Miller 10 11 i Technology Viewpoint It s Time to Take the Quotation Marks Off Web 2 0 Web 2 0 Journal Web2 sys con com Archived from the original on 2011 02 16 Retrieved 2011 02 06 Anderson Paul 2007 What is Web 2 0 Ideas technologies and implications for education JISC Technology and Standards Watch CiteSeerX 10 1 1 108 9995 Parise Salvatore 2008 12 16 The Secrets of Marketing in a Web 2 0 World The Wall Street Journal Archived from the original on 2017 07 10 Retrieved 2017 08 08 MacManus Richard 2007 Mainstream Media Usage of Web 2 0 Services is Increasing Read Write Web Archived from the original on 2011 08 11 Banks use Web 2 0 to increase customer retention PNT Marketing Services 2010 Archived from the original on 2010 11 14 Retrieved 2010 11 14 a b c Hudson Simon Thal Karen 2013 01 01 The Impact of Social Media on the Consumer Decision Process Implications for Tourism Marketing Journal of Travel amp Tourism Marketing 30 1 2 156 160 doi 10 1080 10548408 2013 751276 ISSN 1054 8408 S2CID 154791353 Park Jongpil Oh Ick Keun 2012 01 01 A Case Study of Social Media Marketing by Travel Agency The Salience of Social Media Marketing in the Tourism Industry International Journal of Tourism Sciences 12 1 93 106 doi 10 1080 15980634 2012 11434654 ISSN 1598 0634 S2CID 142955027 a b Buhalis Dimitrios Law Rob 2008 Progress in information technology and tourism management 20 years on and 10 years after the Internet The state of eTourism research PDF Tourism Management 29 4 609 623 doi 10 1016 j tourman 2008 01 005 hdl 10397 527 Milano Roberta Baggio Rodolfo Piattelli Robert 2011 01 01 The effects of online social media on tourism websites Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2011 Springer Vienna pp 471 483 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 454 3557 doi 10 1007 978 3 7091 0503 0 38 ISBN 978 3 7091 0502 3 a b Miguens J Baggio R 2008 Social media and Tourism Destinations TripAdvisor Case Study PDF Advances in Tourism Research 26 28 Archived PDF from the original on 2017 08 30 Retrieved 2017 05 10 a b c d Zeng Benxiang Gerritsen Rolf 2014 04 01 What do we know about social media in tourism A review Tourism Management Perspectives 10 27 36 doi 10 1016 j tmp 2014 01 001 Richardson Will 2010 Blogs Wikis Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms Corwin Press p 171 ISBN 978 1 4129 7747 0 Pete Ladwig Kajsa E Dalrymple Dominique Brossard Dietram A Scheufele Elizabeth A Corley 2012 Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding Science and Public Policy 39 6 761 774 doi 10 1093 scipol scs048 Can eyeOS Succeed Where Desktop com Failed www techcrunch com Archived from the original on 2007 12 12 Retrieved 2007 12 12 Tech Beat Hey YouOS BusinessWeek www businessweek com Archived from the original on 2007 12 17 Retrieved 2007 12 12 a b USPTO serial number 78322306 Tarr uspto gov Archived from the original on 2011 01 13 Retrieved 2011 02 06 O Reilly and CMP Exercise Trademark on Web 2 0 Slashdot 2006 05 26 Archived from the original on 2009 05 11 Retrieved 2006 05 27 Torkington Nathan 2006 05 26 O Reilly s coverage of Web 2 0 as a service mark O Reilly Radar Archived from the original on 15 January 2008 Retrieved 2006 06 01 Application number 004972212 2007 Archived from the original on 2013 05 12 Retrieved 2010 03 22 O Reilly Tim 2002 06 18 Amazon Web Services API O Reilly Network Archived from the original on 2006 06 13 Retrieved 2006 05 27 Tim Berners Lee on Web 2 0 nobody even knows what it means September 2006 Archived from the original on 2017 07 08 Retrieved 2017 06 15 He s big on blogs and wikis and has nothing but good things to say about AJAX but Berners Lee faults the term Web 2 0 for lacking any coherent meaning developerWorks Interviews Tim Berners Lee IBM 2006 08 22 Archived from the original on 2007 07 01 Retrieved 2007 06 04 Bubble 2 0 The Economist 2005 12 22 Archived from the original on 2006 11 19 Retrieved 2006 12 20 Flintoff JohnPaul 2007 06 03 Thinking is so over The Times London Archived from the original on 2009 05 07 Retrieved 2009 06 05 Wolf Gary Steve Jobs The Next Insanely Great Thing Wired Archived from the original on 2015 04 18 Retrieved 2015 04 16 Gorman Michael Web 2 0 The Sleep of Reason Part 1 Archived from the original on 29 June 2011 Retrieved 26 April 2011 Terranova Tiziana 2000 Free Labor Producing Culture for the Digital Economy Social Text 18 2 33 58 doi 10 1215 01642472 18 2 63 33 S2CID 153872482 Peterson Soren 2008 Loser Generated Content From Participation to Exploitation First Monday 13 3 Archived from the original on 2012 10 25 Retrieved 2012 04 28 Taylor Astra 2014 The People s Platform Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age Metropolitan Books ISBN 9780805093568 Gehl Robert 2011 The Archive and the Processor The Internal Logic of Web 2 0 New Media and Society 13 8 1228 1244 doi 10 1177 1461444811401735 S2CID 38776985 Andrejevic Mark 2007 iSpy Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era Lawrence KS U P of Kansas ISBN 978 0 7006 1528 5 Zittrain Jonathan Minds for Sale Berkman Center for the Internet and Society Archived from the original on 12 November 2011 Retrieved 13 April 2012 Accessibility in Web 2 0 technology IBM Archived from the original on 2015 04 02 Retrieved 2014 09 15 In the Web application domain making static Web pages accessible is relatively easy But for Web 2 0 technology dynamic content and fancy visual effects can make accessibility testing very difficult Web 2 0 and Accessibility Archived from the original on 24 August 2014 Web 2 0 applications or websites are often very difficult to control by users with assistive technology Marwick Alice 2010 Status Update Celebrity publicity and Self Branding in Web 2 0 PDF Archived PDF from the original on 2017 07 22 Retrieved 2017 07 06 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a Cite journal requires journal help Jarrett Kylie 2008 Interactivity Is Evil A Critical Investigation of Web 2 0 PDF First Monday 13 3 doi 10 5210 fm v13i3 2140 Jenkins Henry 2008 Convergence Culture The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 14 1 5 12 doi 10 1177 1354856507084415 External links Edit Wikimedia Commons has media related to Web 2 0 Learning materials related to Web 2 0 at Wikiversity Scholia has a profile for Web 2 0 Q131164 Web 2 0 Social Media Social Networks Charleston South Carolina SUA MultiMedia 2017 ISBN 978 1 544 63831 7 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Web 2 0 amp oldid 1127889149, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.