Talk:Web 2.0/Archive 2

message: "Perhaps web content will become less under the control of specialised, so-called web designers and closer to Tim Berners-Lee's original concept of the web as a democratic, personal, and DIY medium of communication. Content is less likely to flow through email and more likely to be posted on an attractive webpage and distributed by RSS."
Does speculation on what may happen belong here, just wondering? Sontra 08:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made it less speculative, less POV and shorter, but kept TBL reference as it shows Web 2.0 is the fulfilment of a vision for the Web. Stephen B Streater 08:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I don't understand why GraemeL keeps deleting the following 2 links from the supportive category.
1) Geek 2.0: It has the best definition of Web 2.0 I've come across, and it is also a very supportive site of Web 2.0. I'm not sure how this can be made to fit into the current article:
"On April 1st, 2004, Google launched GMail, which went on to ignite the whole Web 2.0 / AJAX revolution which we are witnessing right now. There is no agreed definition of Web 2.0. I like to think of it as the re-birth or second-coming of the web. The Web 2.0 websites are more like web applications, and have a rich, highly interactive and generally well designed user interface. They could also be using web services offered by other sites (for eg, Google Maps, Flickr photo web service, etc). Syndication and community are also associated with a site being Web 2.0. AJAX is the technical term which is responsible for the increased interactiveness of Web 2.0 websites. But the fundamentals remain the same - what's under the hood of a Web 2.0 application is as important as it was a few years ago." 
2) The State of Web 2.0: This was written recently by Dion Hinchcliffe, who is the editor-in-chief of the Web 2.0 Journal. It also has a very good explanation of Web 2.0, alongwith nice charts and diagrams. It also has links to many other useful definitions of Web 2.0
04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one is nothing but blog spam. The second one is also a blog and they are rearly good sources of information. Link to an article of his in the journal, not a blog which is an unreliable source of information, not under the overview of an editorial team. --GraemeL (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supportive 

message: Editors of this page are reminded that Wikipedia has a hard-and-fast three-revert rule. One should not make the same addition or deletion three times within 24 hours. I have placed a note on the Administrators' noticeboard for his five reverts (Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#.5B.5BUser:Jjzeidner.5D.5D), but the rule applies to all editors. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violations of 3RR 

message: Well Wikipedians,  It would appear that the 'consensus' would rather have a littering of random marketing tidbits than useful information regarding the legal status of the term Web 2.0.  Wikipedia is a joke.  Who other than someone employed( possibly indirectly ) by invested parties, would diligently want to subtract a highly relevant iota of information regarding the term 'web 2.0'?  This indicates some more serious problems with the veracity of Wikipedia.  As has been noted by many, Wikipedia is in the state of decay.  Given what has transpired here, I am now unable to trust any data I find on this site.  It appears that someone is trying to get the term 'web 2.0' to be associated with participation and collaboration, so they can sell that understanding to those who would want to exploit it.  Wikipedia is worthless, Web 2.0 is worthless.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjzeidner (talk • contribs) .
: I agree that Web 2.0 is a joke. There is no clear definition of "Web 2.0." It came from a marketing brainstorming session, for goodness sake! There is worth in discussing AJAX (though it really is old technology). There is definitely mileage in DHTML (although it is just a "wrapper" term for other technologies). There is NO need for the blanket term "Web 2.0." This article should make it more clear that "Web 2.0" is merely a hype-infested buzzword. --Beachy 23:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd agree, but it's utterly imaterial to wikipedia: the term exists, no matter how vague or stupid it is, and this page should describe it as it is commonly used. --Artw 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violations of Common Sense 

message: In my opinion the link to http://web2dot5.blogspot.com/2005/12/web-20-asps-emperors-new-new-clothes.html is blogspam. It is not notable and should be removed. It is currently found in the following section:
Critics refer to these trends as ASP 1.1, and point out that numerous similar web-based application services, or ASPs, appeared during the Dot-com bubble, and then vanished, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers.
I actually think the entire text above should be removed. Or at least rewritten.
--Sleepyhead 14:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to edit it out too. Not directly talking about Web 2.0. Stephen B Streater 16:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a widely noted point that a large number of "web 2.0" companies have reintroduced failed concepts from web 1.0. This article points this out in pretty clear terms, and coins the critical term "ASP 1.1". Offering counterpoint and references to history is part of implementing Wikipedia:NPOV.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.156.78.216 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is widely noted then please include a better reference than a non-notable blog post. Besides, ASP has nothing to do with Web 2.0 - SaaS is a different story though. --Sleepyhead 14:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A blog post can indeed be a notable ref. It is blog comments that are not notable. You don't appear to have much support on this, and you seem focused on the SaaS/ASP POV. There are many, many new app services with the same biz model and features as Intranets.com --4.156.78.67 15:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue here is not about NPOV but about Notability.  A blog with only 38 links from 26 sites (per Technorati can't really be said to be a notable blog for linking.  See WP:EL for the applicable guideline here.  --Pkchan 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's about both. And this blog sometimes appears on techmeme, which may be a better measure of notability, since Technorati considers all links as equal --4.156.78.67 16:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  61 google results does not make it notable. Besides, even if the blog is somewhat notable that doesn't mean the post is relevant or notable enough to be linked to from a wikipedia article. I am not very found of the "web 2.0" term and welcome objectivity in all articles. Critisicm of web 2.0 is indeed needed in this article but I do not think that particular reference is notable or useful in this article. --Sleepyhead 17:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry if I reverted too many times; Sleepyhead had axed it without following up the previous discussion, and a bot reverted me when the summary read only "revert" --4.156.78.67 18:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  That's 61 results at techmeme.com alone! I am not debating apps like salesforce, but rather sites designed to mimic desktop apps. The blog offers a nice critique, and the blog itself is well referenced. Suppose we drop use of 'ASP 1.1' and offer the link as a ref for 'Critics'? --4.156.78.67 17:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, techmeme is not a very notable source either. Your search was for "web 2.5" - it is not just that specific blog that use that term. Mimicing desktop apps is not a core part of "web 2.0" so I do not see it as very relevant criticism. --Sleepyhead 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Looking at your contributions it seems that the only edits you have done are related to this link. That can suggest that you are the author of the blog. If that is the case, please remembember that wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion. --Sleepyhead 19:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think you'll find much agreement that techmeme is not notable. Virtually all of the hits in that search reference the blog. Writely and similar services have received a lot of web 2.0 buzz, so desktop mimicry is indeed regarded as core to web 2.0. I am the original author of the section in question; the webtop phenomenon is a personal interest. I've also contributed to the trademark issue, and the structure of the article, over a period of months. --4.156.195.111 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you find a WP:RS for the ASP 1.1 name? Stephen B Streater 22:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I proposed to drop 'ASP 1.1' and use the link as a ref on 'critics'. If there isn't more discussion by later today, I'll try that and we'll go from there. --4.156.195.111 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The link is not notable. If you cannot find a relevant and notable reference that point out the same critisicm then it is obvious that this criticism is not important enough to be incldued in this article. Do not add the link again. I will report you for vandalism if you continue to do so. --Sleepyhead 06:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have presented reasonable evidence of notability, and made a good faith proposal and edit. There are no grounds to report vandalism. Sleepyhead, on the other hand, has a history of whacking links indescriminately. Let someone else challenge this for a change. --4.156.195.161 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to WP:EL : "Links to normally avoid: 12. Blogs...Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.". #1 The link is a blog. #2 The blog is not very notable. #3 The critisicm the post raises is not covered by other sources. Thus the link should not be included. And you have not made any reasonble evidence of notability. --Sleepyhead 13:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That section of the article is closely related to the blog post, and the blog is high-standard enough to appear in techmeme. Noone else has raised objections. If that remains the case, I will revert later today. --4.156.195.161 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, if you cannot provide evidence of notability then do not re-add link. Techmeme is far from a respectful resource. It is a collection of news from various sources, including blogs, collected by individuals. Look at the external links in this article: The economist, PCMag, CNet etc. and some blogs - but very notable ones i.e. Nicholas Carr. External links must be relevant, notable and follow the guidelines. This link does not. If you add it again I will report you for vandalism. Also, note that there are no other contributors who are supporting your point of view. --Sleepyhead 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've made your POV clear. Noone else has objected to my proposal. Stop reverting this and let someone else have a say if you're right. If you report vandalism, you'll just look foolish. It's clearly not. --4.156.195.161 13:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am acting in accordance to the guidelines. However, if a concensus is made on this talk page to re-add the link then I will not object to that. Btw: can you please register an account instead of making anonymous edits. --Sleepyhead 13:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, this is running into the right margin now, so let me drag it back :)  To the anon editor who insists on adding the ASP 1.1 link: your preferred version opens with "Some critics point out that...".  If you want to add some credibility to this claim, I would suggest you to put forward at least one more source (a reliable source, hopefully) that mentions the same viewpoint and attributes that to that blog post or its author (and, as pointed out by Sleepyhead, techmeme doesn't count because it is merely an aggregator).  If the post can't pass even this simple test, then there'll be no doubt it is nn.  --Pkchan 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  blogspam 

message: What exactly is the point of discussing the meaning of Web 2.0 when it is clearly nothing more than a stupid multi-level marketing scheme?--Jjzeidner 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web 2.0 is an Infomercial payed for by CMP Media 

message: Anyone can say anything on a blog, whereas reliable sources are less likely to print random rubbish. Do we have any ASP 1.1 critics from reliable sources? If so, this would demonstrate that it is a mainstream criticism worthy of mention. Stephen B Streater 17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASP 1.1 

message: They left that a bit late! I think we were already using the term on our home page by then. Stephen B Streater 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  European trademark 

message: Isn't it time we arhcive this sucker again? It's getting very long. --Artw 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  --Pkchan 16:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page