Talk:Web 2.0/Archive 3

message: I wonder if we should do something about the undue prominance of "Rich Internet Applications" in this article, since most of the commonly cited Web 2.0 success stories are nothing of the kind. Most often when AJAX is used, and it's not always used, it supports a fairly ordinary kind of webpage (see flicker et al) rather than the all singing all dancing interactivity-fest that RIA implies. 
Also as far as I can see at this stage the various "Web Desktops" are just toys - very neat examples of client-side programming but hardly part of some kind of web revolution. --Artw 15:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think that because you haven't yet seen FORscene. But you have good a point - most Web 2.0 applications are more like Google. The article should reflect what has happened, not what we hope might happen. Just bear in mind that some Rich Internet Applications do exist and are Web 2.0. Stephen B Streater 18:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Always makes me chuckle when someone takes an authoritative tone and tells us what "Web 2.0" is ... --Beachy 00:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  FORscene is interesting, though in my mind a little less interesting for being a big java applet that squats in the browser, but it doesn't seem to be very Web 2.0 to me - it's pretty much an interface to a closed system, unless I'm missing something. Artw 22:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes - you are missing something. The programmes made on it usually start on video tape and end up on TV, so it's hardly a closed system. And you can upload video over the air from your phone if you want. So not a closed system. It just happens to be able to do everything ;-) Perhaps someone will make that more clear in the article. Stephen B Streater 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  TBH That sounds a lot more like an old-school  ASP than Web 2.0.  Artw 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm really not sure this is the p,ace to debate this, but you seem to be stretching the definition on almost everyone of those. Artw 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're being a bit vague. You don't have to discuss it, but I would welcome a discussion. On the FORscene talk page perhaps? Stephen B Streater 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AJAX Heavy Rich Internet Applications / Web Desktops etc... 

message: Large, colourful I get. I presume "seal" means "seal". But what is "pointed" about them?
: I'm guessing they mean those stars and circles in the style of supermarket "BUY ONE, GET ONE FREE" stickers. TBH It's not a visual element i've seen that much of lately. Artw 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered about this too. I think it's what the reference [1] refers to as "round flashes". However, these terms evidently require context and are readily misunderstood. I've submitted an edit which I hope makes the language of the list clearer. Alas, no more seals... Mooncow 00:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wtf are pointed seals? 

message: The sections Example Web2.0 Companies and Web2.0 Blogs appears to be invitation to spams (not to mention being a violation of MOS).  Does anybody have any idea on how to handle them?
I would suggest that any example website and blog listed on this article should pass the same standard as that for admitting an article into Wikipedia -- that is, any link here should be an internal link to another Wikipedia article, rather than directly to the website/blog concerned.  But I am open to any other suggestion of a standard of linking to any example website or blog.  Any standard would do in my opinion -- otherwise we may as well simply remove these two sections to pre-empt the predictably numerous and unmaintainable waves of spams.  --Pkchan 11:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judicious use of watch and revert seems to do the trick. Artw 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking about something to the line of the hidden notice under Software as a Service#SaaS providers.  WP:CORP should provide a good guideline for us to keep or remove links on the aforementioned two sections.  --Pkchan 14:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Clarification: WP:CORP would be a good guideline only to the Web 2.0 service providers section.  For the "Web 2.0 blogs" (heaven knows what on earth this means), WP:WEB should apply.  --Pkchan 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of websites and blogs 

message: The lead of the article now incorporates a quote from John Dvorak of PC Magazine.  I removed it and delegate it to a footnote but Beachy seems to disagree.  I think that quote does not belong to the lead because it appears to be something definitive, when the truth is that quote only represent one point of view from one critic and is far from representative.  What do other editors here think about this?  --Pkchan 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that you favour the first paragraph defining "Web 2.0" as if it is a serious term with real-life, defined applications. You cannot understand that this view must also be balanced with the views of well-respected developers who believe the term is marketing hype. Your outspoken point of view is very obvious here. Beware of allowing your personal opinions and (obviously) copious amounts of spare time to overwhelm what could be a balanced article --Beachy 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: There are two links under the External links section to articles, one by John Dvorak mentioned above and another by Jeffrey Zeldman, which have been quoted in the main body as references and do appear on the References section.  According to WP:EL they "should be linked to in a references section, not in external links".  I removed them from there but Beachy thinks that's censorship because, incidentally, the two links both fall under the Critical section.  What do the other editors here think about this?  --Pkchan 20:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pkchan - I wouldn't mind, but it was YOU that put at least one of those links in the references section, as a duplicate of one of the critical links.. and then you proceeded to remove the critical link. Please do not use such "migration" as a sneaky technique to reduce the number of links shown in the critical section. --Beachy 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps that's because an encyclopaedia is supposed to report the debate in a neutral way, rather than actually be the debate. Stephen B Streater 09:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO It should actually define the term and only then "rteport the debate". Right now the article is being trashed by people trying to get a sentance trashing the term into every damn paragraph, which makes it horrificly clunky.   Artw 00:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I removed a link to an article which you actually have to pay to read. I find these links really annoying. Is there a wikipedia policy on this?Johncmullen1960 08:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  paying external links 

message: This section is unreferenced and dubious.  The intro says that contrary to people who use this term, things are not changing very much.  Then it goes on to catalog things that are changing.  Is this supposed to be a revolutionary vs. incrememental distinction, or meant to show how incremental changes drive revolutionary ones?  In any case, this needs to be tied to a respectable source; as far as I can tell right now, this is all original research.  -- Beland 01:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That first paragraph is terrible, and should go entirely. The bulleted list could probably move to the introduction. Artw 16:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market drivers of Web 2.0 

message: * Remove -- Web 2.0 is already a mockery of a technical concept, without "designers" getting involved as well --Beachy 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Vote to Remove/Keep the Visual Elements Section 

message: I see the picture is back. Seems a little silly, but essentially harmless - thoughts? Artw 15:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The picture

message: The current version of the lead appears to focus too much on O'Reilly Media's creation and their intention, and does not address sufficiently the question of what it means and how it is used in the wider context in a descriptive manner.  In addition, the list of examples cited, ie "social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies", appear outdated and not sufficiently representative of what Web 2.0 stands for. I propose to re-write the paragraph as follows in order to address this and to dilute the "O'Reilly impression", while staying (as I believe) NPOV.  All comments are welcome.  --Pkchan 09:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead - proposed new version 

message: (originally posted on User talk:Pkchan )
Hi, I felt the connection between web 2.0 and desktop alerts was strong, especially under the established subheading of new web applications and desktops.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wgardner (talk • contribs) .
: That section refers to web desktops.  I fail to see how desktop alerts are relevant here.  --Pkchan 10:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web 2.0 - desktop alerts 

message: Would it be appropriate to include some of the most used and potentially useful Web 2.0 software on this article. Writely is mentioned, but there are many other, particulary office apps, such as ThinkFree, ajaxWriter, Google Spreadsheet, goffice and Zoho.
Gary 22:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also think a list would be fraught with difficulty, as there is no agreed definition. Although people are fairly sure they know what they are talking about, when push comes to shove, different people seem to have different ideas. I have found this by actually discussing particular cases. It's not as obvious as it looks, as Web 2.0 is all things to all men, and all men take something different away. Stephen B Streater 20:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of software 

message: There's some confusion in tense in this article (the first part of it talks about Web 2.0 in the future, but later refers to it in the past tense?), but I'd like to give this article my grammatical stamp of approval based solely on the fact that it used the word "hithertofore." Kudos aplenty. 129.237.90.11 18:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language usage 

message: Is the last paragraph of the Criticism section as good as it could be?  It is certainly possible that Web 2.0 targets too small a market of potential Internet users. But I would argue that the concept is too ill-defined for that criticism really to stick.  If it is "all singing, all dancing" Web apps, as described below, then yes, they won't "degrade gracefully" and will be unusable by most ordinary people.  But when I think of Web 2.0, I think of sites like flickr and del.icio.us, and, to a lesser extent, Amazon, Google (especially the maps - with their AJAX backend, and the personal homepage feature), and social networking sites like Facebook (especially in its latest iteration, with Mini-Feed, etc.).  Sites like that have a much larger user base than 50,000 people, although only Google and Amazon are really making money (and that, it could be argued, is for other reasons that their "Web 2.0"-ness).  Thus, it seems that Koppelman's criticism is out-of-date or irrelevant.  And the parenthesis about the site later getting more users seems, to this outsider, in-jokey at best.  I'm going to get rid of it.
Evan Donovan 20:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism