Talk:Web 2.0

message: Since there is so much dialog, I have created this sub-section for my edit. I removed the line referencing the book. This is not how to write an encylopedic article. If you are going to cite a book, you add it as a reference and then provide a numeric inline citation using Wiki markup. Plus this is not an college paper, APA, or MLA, its not really the best use of the text to provide a full blown inline book citation and then follow with a supporting statement; the Wiki markup has a far more eloquent solution for that, which assists the researchers of an article to verify its notability. Therefor, there is no need to provide inline book style citations in the article text. The other point is that there were probably many books written about it, at that time, and about that subject. If you are going to list one, list many, and provide them all as citations in support of the criticism. This strengths the position by providing it in a neutral way. Also, if you are going to quote someone, you really need a citation. I will check back and if that person quoted does not have a citation soon, I will be forced to blank that line. I agree with the criticisms, but it does not lend it due credit if it the prose is not well formed. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 13:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 1 

message: Anybody want to take a stab at clarifying the paraphrase of Michael Gorman in the last paragraph of the Criticism section? Does "due to the lack of expertise that it outwardly claim" mean "because Web 2.0 content claims an expertise that it does not in fact have" ? Or does it mean "because of the lack of expertise that Web 2.0 content shamelessly flaunts" ?
Bartleby62 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism: Gorman (what does he mean?) 

message: The whole Web 2 should be a criticism. The web 2 exists only in the mind of some smart guys.
There is no hardware or software that is thinking about web 2. Is facebook web 2?
Then we are web 2. Is facebook web 1.X than we are dot X.
Indeed web 2 was a concept. It was about user interaction. We passed it too fast.
We need web 3: TV on demand. I login and ask: CSI, year 1, episode 3, or the last berlusconi
giggles.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by G silvestro (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right there: This whole page should be a criticism: Web 2

message: Any computer savvied person understands what has truly changed the last few years is the polishing of technologies that were already in place and the emergence of the wikis, mainly through wikipedia as well as the emergence of democratic voting sites like digg.com and reddit. There are more sources needed on reflecting those ideas because it's all over the place. We had videos, it just wasn't apparent enough. The internet got faster eventually, so what? It was to be expected, no "web 2.0" emerged, it just was the progress it would inevitably be (and it was slowly gradual and it keeps happening). Graphics and html rendering technologies got getter, so what? It was happening all the time and it keeps happening. It's insulting hearing people self-labeled to be computer scientists working on this jargon just for the sake of their parent company that wants this marketing in order to sell packages to customers that are foolish enough to upgrade just because they think they aren't "web 2.0" ready. Besides, web 2.01 would be the next day since, the internet is all-evolving. fs 22:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This whole page should be a criticism 

message: There have been repeated childish edits from 72.21.96.9 which the valiant efforts of a number of editors have kept on top of. Is there any way this IP address could be blocked? (I know that's not fool-proof, but it would reduce it for a while at least). Greyskinnedboy (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated vandalism 

message: User User:Axel_L%C3%B6fving has posted a peacock on this article (unfortunately without starting a discussion thread to present his points about which aspects are subjectives. I have posted on his talk page to invite him to add his points here. I would suggest that if he provides nothing to back this up, the tag is removed.
My comments there:
''
If you are going to do something as potentially confrontational as posting a peacock on a very active article like Web 2.0, could you at least open a dicussion on your reasoning so that it can be resolved? 
For some reason, the whole topic seems to raise emotions on both sides - it seems to be either a holy grail or the anti-christ (depending on the position) - in reality it is neither, it is a term coined to describe a shift in the way many people were thinking about and/or using the technology across the Internet. 
Sure, it gets hyped up by the evangelists, but there is a generally accepted definition (quoted and cited in the article); this is a term used in the media, industry, and increasingly by the general population. 
Could you lay out which aspects you regard as subjective, then there can be an open (and no doubt heated) discussion about it, but hopefully the article that results will be better for it. Thanks.
Let the games commence. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the peacock notice, and I felt that it spoke for itself. To me, that wasn't about the promoting of the subject in a non-neutral matter (which I'm entirely uninterested in), but that the article was so steeped in jargon that I couldn't understand anything of it. I thought peacock stood for jargon, which is what makes this article unintelligible, at least to me. If I had any suggestions as to how to improve the article,  would have started editing and/or posted some notice on this talk page. But as is, I can't make heads or tails on this article, because it's all marketspeech. Axel Löfving (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There probably is too much jargon in this article and it should be cleaned up. Following the deletion of Web 3.0 (now saved to User:Greyskinnedboy/Web_3.0), I'm working on some suggestions which I will be posting back here to get consensus before changing anything. Thanks. (BTW: there are templates for jargon cleanup) Greyskinnedboy (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to see where in agreement :) (not much gamecommencing, thus ;P). English isn't my first language and I've mainly been editing the swedish wikipedia, were things work a bit differently. I realize now I came off as quite rude. Cheers to you for being so levelheaded. Axel Löfving (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this article promote the subject in a subjective manner? 

message: Now I've spent some more time thinking through the merger proposal (above), I am concerned about the size of the article growing so quickly, at over 37K, will just get worse with adding in sections about Web 1.0, Web 3.0, and Web 2.1, etc. 
Would it make sense now to chunk it down into a main page and some sub pages (i.e. with a '/' slash), to keep everything organised together, while enabling us to make the chunks more digestible? Your thoughts, please. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure proposal 

message: Someone want to archive this discussion page? It's very long. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Was way too long. Rror (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: In the 'Technology overview' sxn, the Extensions 'bullet' says "Powerful algorithms that leverage the Web as an application platform as well as a document server."  It seems to me that this is at once hype and contentless.  Hype, because of the word "powerful"; I don't think the algorithms to do document creation or serving are particularly powerful (as opposed, say, to algorithms that do NLP or speech recognition or astronomy simulations or...); nor is it clear to me that "leverage" is anything beyond a buzzword.  And contentless, because the Web 1.0 certainly used algorithms.  I suspect the real point here is simply that technology can be used to allow user creation of information (like this wikipedia), as opposed to just reading/ browsing.  So perhaps a rewording like "Technology to enable user-created and edited content."  /s/ An Old Grump Mcswell (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole section was beset by a overload of buzzword hype. I have just tried to identify each list of adjectives and adverbs (and adjectival and adverbial phrases on the occasions where these had occurred), with a view to removing them where their contribution was no more than misplaced salesmanship or the obfuscation of underlying meaning or the disenablement of communication with the reader, the user or the potential future wiki-contributor, thereby leveraging my innate abilities as a non-silicon-based processing system (aka a human being) to try to reveal the underlying value-added understanding-enabling message.  Sometimes, there was none. --Nigelj (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology 

message: Hi could we discuss what are emaployees legal right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.60.57 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean to implement such information in the article? Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  EMPLOYEES LEGAL RIGHT 

message: Google now focuses more on distribution, so the description is a little out dated. Noghiri (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  google 

message: "Of Flash's many capabilities, the most commonly used in Web 2.0 is its ability to play audio and video files. This has allowed for the creation of Web 2.0 sites such as YouTube, where video media is seamlessly integrated with standard HTML."
Excuse me, but how does Flash enable the creation of Web 2.0 sites, when it was already enabled by open standard formats and conformant media plugins?  While Flash may seamlessly integrate video media with standard HTML, other formats/plugins did the same before Flash.  Flash is simply another proprietary interlocked format/player combo designed to monopolize a very large market, like Microsoft Windows/Office formats/applications were designed to monopolize a very large market.  For audio/video, Flash offers no advantages over the various media formats/players that came before it, some of which are open standards. Rtdrury (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. --Nigelj (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

text: All hail HTML5 video/audio tags. Down with flash!— Supuhstar  * § 17:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, what you both said, Jonny Quick and Andy Dingley, regarding Flash, as not particularly being about collaboration etc. But Flash is being replaced by HTML5 for video content. The primary example is Youtube, another is Vimeo. However, in both cases, HTML5 is beta, and Flash is still offered, though that WILL change! At that time, we should remove some of the Flash specific content from the article. --FeralOink (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Flash Necessary? 

message: This article is badly mis- or dis-organized, does not present a clear picture of what it really means. The section headings didn't really do the content any justice, not do they now. It had a section title "How it works", and then just threw around a few technology buzz words, following with a section of "Technology overview". Overviews should be first.  Articles Web 1.0 and 2.0 should be merged as they discuss the identical concept of classifying technologies, marketing methodologies, business models, in rear-mirror view of the history of the web. "Web 1.0" doesn't mean much without "Web 2.0". By merging, a lot of content can be consolidated keeping article size lower, and the essence of these terms can be brought to mean something in the larger context. As it stands there is no clear presentation of the concepts. Kbrose (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: State of affairs

message: Rznc (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What change do you want done? Place  when you have full details.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor is a sock of , who was blocked indef for spamming on this and related articles.  Favonian (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Rznc, 27 August 2010 

message: There aren't versions of the "web." We've had online communities since the IRC days. We've had AJAX since 1999. People who tend to use this term are usually uninformed on the web and dont understand it is simply a buzzword that caught on. Just because a lot of people use it doesnt mean it is significant.  LightSpeed (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather think of it as innovation that has been made to web and changed the way we use the internet forever. Yes we still use what has been created before ,however, everything now revolve around the internet making our lives easier just because of such innovation called web 2.0 Amjaad1 (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web 2.0 is just a buzzword 

message: This article contains a section on Web 3.0. Why would that be in here? That's like having a section on Windows 7 in the article for Windows XP. If anything, it should be a brief description with a  redirecting the viewer to a Web 3.0 article. — Supuhstar  * § 16:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: An RFC of the above topic has been suggested by Ruud. The subject of the RFC is "Web 3.0 is distinguishable enough from Web 2.0 that it now deserves its own article". Please Agree or Disagree — Supuhstar  * § 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: This section doesn't present, I think, a balanced look at modern web technologies and uses (what has been [mis-]labeled as Web 2.0) in education.  There is almost no discussion or presentation of research or expert opinion that doesn't promote it.  For example, regard this:
:One of the biggest shifts that Will Richardson points out ... is the fact that education must be not only socially but collaboratively constructed.
That's his opinion (and that's fine) but where's the presentation of people who don't agree?  I find it hard to believe that there aren't any such people.  Indeed, there was an episode of Frontline that showed contemporary (2010) college students at MIT that could write paragraphs just fine, but couldn't put together a whole essay because their long-term focus and attention span was stunted due to modern, (semi-)ubiquitous, mostly social, technology.
Another example: MUST you have social technology to learn symbolic logic?   It might help some people study with their friends, but is Will Richardson really right and my logic class MUST be social to be best?  We must condense and balance this section.
Metafax1 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole education section is pretty weak. I'm in favor of deletion. Web 2.0 isn't really specific enough for education. E-learning or MOOC are more relevant. Bhny (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web 2.0 in education 

message: I become increasingliy irritated by the fights among Wikipedia contributors about what a page should contain or not, if it should exist or not, and the clear censoring initiatives pushed through by some who are either part of a national wikipedia editors "elite", of which the existence alone is in contradiction with the concept of Wikipedia itself, if they are not part of some industrial lobby.
I ended up on this page after I wanted to know what this Web 2.0 expression was sall about, but I found out rather by reading this "noisy" discussion page than by reading the actual wikipedia page itself.
This happens more and more often when I read pages about subjects that not everyone agrees about, and some lobbies or persons keep deleting, editing,
writing into pages that were fine as they were - but not for everyone, as it seems.
Slightly off-topic, but a general statement for Wikipedia pages suffering the same fate:
It will be the beginning of the end of Wikipedia, if diverting opinions cannot exist on the same Wikipedia page without one of the two being thrown off again and again. To me, Wikipedia is the shining exemple of what the Internet should be, since it's very first days: a cumulation of humanity's knowledge, freely accessible to everyone.
Free speech has to be one of the basic foundations of Wikipedia, otherwise it will be no more than the mirror of what we are supposed to know, to believe, to read.
Johan Prins, France  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.223.32 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, Johan--it's a popular enough term that it has a place here.  But the predominant consensus that it's a buzzword is not "lobbying".  Those of us with IT and web development experience simply know it's fictional.  Perhaps the demonstration of this just needs to clarified (and the article condensed for brevity and sanity).Metafax1 (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  even if "Web 2.0" is not more than a concept, or even just a buzzword, this needs to be documented 

message: This article is somewhat turstworthy, quite biased, somewhat complete, quite well-written,and quite accurate. The characteristics section can be improved  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DegapudiSudhipti (talk • contribs) 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics 

message: One thing i do think can be improved is the overall layout of the content as it seems messy and confusing to me --Turbo566 talk 08:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Web 2.0 technologies - another example by Elizabeth Brewer - Appalachian State University 68.119.47.79 (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: I don't see web forums and groups (e.g. Google Groups, Yahoo Groups, StackExchange groups, various 'boards', 'mailing lists', and the many thousands of independently-moderated registered-user discussion sites) mentioned anywhere in this article. Is that because they've been overlooked, are called something else, or are not part of what is thought of as Web 2.0? Stringybark (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are web forums and groups part of the stuff that is called Web 2.0? 

message: I'm tearing through and doing some major removals. This article is extremely bloated and could be better titled "The development of the Internet" or "Digital humanities". Web 2.0 is just a buzzword and (less scathingly) a perspective on the Web. Therefore, there is little encyclopedic content to be had, and this article should be short.
If anyone's mad, I suggest relocating this stuff elsewhere. Some could go on other Wikipedia pages. The rest would look good on your personal website or blog.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risc64 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: split web 1.0 into seperate article with more detailed information about it with pictures, citations to aid readers in getting an idea of the look and feel of the old lightweight internet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:3010:BFFA:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  web 1.0 split 

message: Hi , I may have found the citation for the line "Writing when Palm Inc. was introducing 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 hyperlinking mechanism introduced by HTTP would be used by a variety of devices and platforms. As such, her use of the "2.0" designation refers to a next version of the Web that does not directly relate to the term's current use.[citation needed]"
It is from this paper in think  "Lu, C. H. E. N. "Management & Engineering.". How do i go about this edit. I am new here . Pls advice.
Aishwarya889 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation  

message: Under "Concepts," the article currently states" "Rich Internet application (RIA) — 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." But usability and interactivity aren't the same thing. Depending on users' accessibility needs, extra graphics, animation, interactivity, and features may cut into usability or cut it off entirely. Which leads to tools such as Firefox's Reader View to try to cut all the other things to restore usability. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Usability/Interactivity" 

message: I can't quite make out what this is trying to say.  It seems to be claiming that being a "web application" is somehow contrasted with being implemented with CGI.  Maybe the precise definition of a "web application" isn't clear cut, but surely it's independent of whether it's implemented with CGI.  Furthermore, referring to Perl on the RHS of the comparison is puzzling, given that it seems to be the traditional language of choice for CGI.  I make out that CGI is also sometimes used internally to run PHP.  In any case, the underlying web server technology, the programming languages used and whether what's been created constitutes a "web application" seem to be fundamentally independent of each other, and as such I say this bullet point needs a rewrite.  Does anyone fancy a stab at it? — Smjg (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Common Gateway Interface (CGI) instead of a web application" 

message: Forums existed before web 2.0 timeframe. 67.71.84.17 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So what?  Furthermore, Usenet is a completely separate system from the WWW, so is irrelevant here. — Smjg (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a good point, because web forums were purely www based and in "1.0". It's pretty obvious all those notations about the "version of the web" are mostly marketing jargon created and used by firms trying to sell to people not that interested in the details of the technology. <FONT COLOR="336666">f</FONT><FONT COLOR="#339999">s</FONT> 19:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Usenet newsgroups are not the "Web" at all. They pre-date the World Wide Web by some years. Equinox ◑ 15:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have people never heard of usenet or forums? 

message: — Assignment last updated by BL33701 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

message: Nobody has seriously used the term for years, and its trappings (like the eternal "beta" badges on sites) are mostly gone. It would be interesting to see the historical dates of usage. Equinox ◑ 15:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty obvious to me that these terms are mostly meaningless, used mainly by firms to promote their tech as "latest". It became ludicrous when people hijacked the term "web 3" to change category entirely and and talk about financial services lol.. <FONT COLOR="336666">f</FONT><FONT COLOR="#339999">s</FONT> 08:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did Web 2.0 end? 

message: The redirect Xavier Ribes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Xavier Ribes]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]