Talk:Web 2.0/Archive 1

message: This seems to be a vague article promoting a bunch of the author's favorite technologies and psuedo-tech-blabber. It certainly doesn't match how I've seen the term used. And some of the writing is just absurd -- XML-RPC is a specific format, it cannot be RESTian. If you want to remove the totallydisputed tag you're going to need some cites to back this stuff up.AaronSw 21:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague article 

message: I'm not qualified to really resolve the debate over the definition, but I am pretty knowledgeable about the Wikipedia, so I changed things to conform better to Wikipedia standards. The text still needs a lot of cleanup to eliminate its present jargon-heavy, promotional tone. A more inclusive approach to the definition would be a vast improvement, i.e. more of a "web 2.0 is like this" than "web 2.0 is this". Future editors should try to think more in terms of explaining Web 2.0 rather than defining Web 2.0. Finally, I added it to the WWW category -- it seemed to call for a more explicit subcategory but there may not be a good one yet. It's something for the time being, at least. --Dhartung | Talk 07:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Web 2.0 is a web of executable endpoints and well formed content. The executable endpoints and well formed content are accessible via URIs. Put differently, Web 2.0 is a web defined by URIs for invoking Web Services and/or consuming or syndicating well formed content.
Hopefully, someone with more time on their hands will expand on this ( I am kinda busy).
BTW - Web 2.0 being a platform doesn't distinguish it in anyway from Web 1.0. They are both platforms, the difference  comes down to platform focus and mode of experience.
Kingsley Idehen 16:50, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that Web 2.0 is a buzzword that has been created during a time when many new internet technologies have been introduced.  The new popular technologies (podcasting, blogs, ajax, rss, etc) got a lot of people excited and there seemed to be a "new wave" of web technologies which seems like it could change the primary ways people use the internet.  Marketing people and tech journalists looked for a word to uniquely identify this new wave in internet trends, and came up with Web 2.0.  However it's not like its a new web, its part of the continuing evolution of technology and many of these technologies in fact have been in development for awhile.  Most likely the term Web 2.0 will just fade away and not have any staying power as a term.  In essence, I think "Web 2.0" is an event in the general conscious of tech journalists... and not an actual object, as evidenced by the difficulty in defining it in terms of objects it covers.  Journalists each have their own definitions for it they promote.  By the way, reading those terms in the graphic on the article really reminded me of this video from timanderic.com (the guys who do Tom Goes to the Mayor on Adult Swim). - Corby 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for pointing at that movie . excellent :) Kosmar 11:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Definition 

message: http://stilicho.blogspot.com/2005/04/blank-corporate-verse.html
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/002690.php
:Please check the date and times of the earlier contributions to this article. If you are going to introduce links, at least provide a degree of chronology. Hopefully this will simplify juxtapostion of opinions and contribution for the lurking audience. It also provides context for Web 2.0 knowledge seekers in general. 
:BTW - it's nice to know why Web 2.0 is tagged npv. But what about making contributions that take it out of npv? If someone has the time to write a blog post expressing dispair and frustration, then why not channel that energy into providing clarity to matter that is clearly of vast importance? -- Kingsley Idehen 17:23, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kingsley, I need to clarify. I did not POV-tag the article. The person who did that was JohnSmith777 (see his Talk and hasn't edited since). [NOTE: 13/8/05 This is Richard MacManus here - I just want to say that I am NOT JohnSmith777. Therefore I have edited out the reference to me that Dhartung made in the previous sentence.] I certainly have channeled my interest in providing clarity into the article, as the history indicates; I also had to express my frustration, and felt that did not belong on Wikipedia. I underline again that I have no problem with you personally, just incomprehensible writing. At this point I am perfectly happy to remove the tag if you agree; it does not seem to reflect specific claims of POV. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As there have been no further comments about the NPOV claims, I am removing the notice. Please bring any such issues here to Talk in future, with specific criticisms of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard, thank you for clarifying that. I apologize for suspecting it was you; I'm still mystified why that person disappeared after our exchange, which I didn't find testy at all. FYI, editing talk pages the way you did is usually a bad idea. Adding your reply would have been sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, will add reply next time :-) That was my first Wikipedia edit, so I don't know the protocols yet. But I've been following the conversation closely and I've just now added my own user page. So perhaps I will start to contribute here. --RichardMacManus | Talk 21:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I'm not sure what is meant by eyeballing here, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with my eyeball. Could someone correct the link?
--Dantams 14:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only rarely heard it as a verb. It was popular during the dot-com boom, e.g. Pets.com advertised like crazy in order to attract "eyeballs" to its website. The meaning is closer to "hit" in a web-traffic sense rather than "user" since a single user can view the site multiple times. If you attract enough eyeballs, your sales -- or your banner-ad click-throughs -- rise. Most web professionals probably think of it as an unhelpful marketing term. --Dhartung | Talk 17:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eyeballing 

message: This link doesn't belong here and the link is irrelevant and unnotable. - Sleepnomore 15:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
:I have a strong feeling this article will attract linkspam on a regular basis. --Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to "reply"... don't have a Wikipedia account, either... but I figured I'd point out that I added a link (my first edit) to Tim O'Reilly's write up on what Web 2.0 is. --Michael Chui, 9:43, 14 October 2005
* Just to clarify: the 24SevenOffice link is relevant as it is a web 2.0 application. Whether it is notable enough to be included can be discussed though. --Sleepyhead81 17:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Absurd? 24SevenOffice utilize many features of "web 2.0" so to speak; ajax, rest, xml, web based. But I don't see it as a prime example of web 2.0 as delicous, Flickr etc. It is however an example of a the business side of web 2.0 as most other web 2.0 sites are aimed at the consumer market. --Sleepyhead 12:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the link to 24SevenOffice 

message: Why doesn't this page show up when you do a Google search for "Web 2.0"?  Using a script, I looked at the first 780 or so results twice recently without getting a hit for any Wikipedia page, actually.  I also tried searching for Wikipedia AND "Web 2.0", this page was not returned in the first 100 results. What's the explanation? Also, is there a reasonable search query that will return this page? EGalloway 00:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that. It's weird. Google will usually privilege pages with the search term in the title and/or URL, so we should be high regardless; and it does index pages that refer to this one, but the only versions I turn up are from Wikipedia mirrors. I can only imagine it fell victim to some sort of spam protection; hopefully the next google dance will fix things. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: At least out of curiosity, I put in a request for someone to look into this. I wonder what they'll say ... --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to update. Google simply referred me back to their FAQ pages, alas. It's still missing from the index. Strange. --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does Google have against this page? 

message: I have removed the following paragraph:
:Others think that Web 2.0 will not be an incremental improvment, but much more. It will fix pop up blockers and spam filters and provide us more of a broadband users experience that the users want. In the future, there will be no difference between a desktop application and a web site. For example iTunes lets you browse the web for music albums - a hybrid application, redefining the word webapp, to mean hybrid of website and application.
This contains
* vague statements ("provide us more of what we want", "broadband users experience")
* crystal balling ("in the future, there will be...")
* random example of iTunes, which further is claimed to "redefine" something
I also removed the list of applications "widely thought" to be examples of web 2.0 apps, per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms (who's widely thinking?). If anyone wants to make a list of examples, attribute it to a good source (like the O'Reilly table). The list also contained some spam. Fredrik | talk 08:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removals 

message: The current text says "The original conception of the web (in this context, labeled Web 1.0) comprised static HTML pages that were updated rarely, if at all". Actually, Tim Berners-Lee's original conception was of a web of documents that were subject to continuous, collaborative authorship and refinement (something like WP, in fact). It is true that the original implementation of the Web comprised static HTML pages. But I'm just a drive-by editor; I make the suggestion for someone more invested in this article. David Brooks 16:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quibble on definition of Web 1.0 

message: I've done heavy work on the Introduction.
It's interesting - Web 2.0 is a hot phrase, and yet despite the heavy tendency of Wikipedia editors towards Slashdot-style subjects, we can't hammer out a decent article on it, despite the coverage on this particular page.
Frankly, I found the article as a whole nigh on unreadable, so I've left the rest of it alone.
--Vodex 14:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Introduction 

message: Under the "Present-day web publishing" header is a list of reasons why people don't serve documents straight from their own computers. I think such a discussion is off-topic anyway, but I really take umbrage at this bit:
: "Commercial pressure Having said all of this, many think that one of the reasons for a relatively low take up of home publishing to the web... has been commercial. In the last decade it has been to the benefit of the software industry, from Microsoft downwards, to convince ordinary users that they do not want to see even simple, standards-compliant scripts such as HTML in their raw form in a basic text editor, let alone have to type the simplest thing into a command line... The tasks are no simpler, merely presented graphically rather than textually and often then available only for some considerable charge rather than free and built in to almost every home machine. Unfortunately at the same time most computer education became centred around learning to use these commercial products rather than learning about the underlying technologies of the web, the internet and the machine..."
To me that sounds like an open source zealot who's grumpy that - shock! - users don't want to edit HTML and AJAX by hand, if indeed they have to edit anything at all.
I think that whole section should be carved right down and left as one or two sentences. Anyone else have any opinions?
El T 13:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-commercial rant in one section? 

message: I deleted the following section from the article, on the grounds that is entirely speculation. --EngineerScotty 01:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted speculation 

message: I removed the innacurate information that IIS comes with most Microsoft computers (and yes, I forgot to add an edit summary, sorry), as it is only included with XP Professional, and server editions of Windows (and in thre past with Windows NT). The new paragraph doesn't mention IIS, but this shouldn't be seen as an anti-Microsoft move. Lurker 12:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IIS 

message: @The term "Web 2.0" refers to what some people see as a second phase of development of the World Wide Web, including its architecture and its applications. It was coined by Dale Dougherty during a meeting between O'Reilly and Associates (a computer book publisher) and MediaLive International (an event organiser) as a marketable term for a series of conferences .:
Well actually this is total bullshit, because the change in arcitecture is called Internet 2.0, not Web 2.0 (that's something different.) But hey, who cares, this is where we fiddle with thing! 81.151.28.63 15:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet 2.0 v Web 2.0 

message: This section is not relevant to the Web 2.0 topic. Web 2.0 concerns the methodology of interacting via the internet through technologies such as AJAX. No significant part of it concerns where or how data is stored, retrieved, and processed.
The material as it stood belonged in an article explaining why computers serving content are not typically found in homes. Interesting though the topic may be, it is not relevant here, at least for as long as Web 2.0 is about interaction enabled by data rather than the data processing itself. El T 16:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of "Present-day web publishing" section 

message: Is peer-to-peer part of Web 2.0 or not? It's not linked in the article. -- Nichtich 11:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  P2P 

message: The phrase is attributed here to Dale Dougherty, date uncertain but apparently of recent vintage. In reality, I very much doubt that he coined it. Here's an example, coming from Joe Firmage, dating back to March 2001 (PDF from the Wayback Machine's record of Firmage's OneCosmos.net site, look on page 17). That's almost certainly before Dougherty, in the context of planning for a conference that took place in 2004, I believe. In fact, I think it's probably impossible to really credit anyone with its invention, as it's such an obvious way to make a techie catchphrase (which partly explains why the meaning is so amorphous). --Michael Snow 06:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit for origin of the term 

message: The entry said: "Web 2.0 in the form that was introduced in 2004 started with a popular article in Business Week entitled "It's a whole new web"."
However, that article dates from September 2005! That doesn't add up, so I removed the reference altogether for now. Please readd it in the appropriate place if you know what role exactly that article played in the popularization of the term (if any). --c3o 03:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It's A Whole New Web" article 

message: I am writing an article on Web 2.0 and came across this Wikipedia article and have had to look closer into the veracity and quality of Wikipedia vs. traditional media to a greater extent than I had expected. In fact I have had to use the history function extensively to unearth items I knew used to be here, leads that are useful to my writings.
Writing, editing and comments here show with painful clarity that it is committed by too deeply rooted technologists with little, if any, perspective on the audience. Technologists are not the only audience. In fact business people and investors are equally importent. What made dot-com exciting was the availability of money that enabled smart people to create useful things that were made available to the general population. Web 2.0 therefore is not a technical label alone, it is a buzzword that is useful in re-attracting investors that got scared in the dot-com bust and subsequently retreated to the property market. Mass deletion of links to companies that might be Web 2.0-compliant is therefore counter-productive to technologists and actively unhelpful to business.
--Artw 18:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article, purpose and audience 

message: Typical Web 2.0 applications tend to do most of their work on the server, limiting these applications to tasks which take a trivial amount of server CPU time.
It seems that the full power of the Web (and that's what, deep down, we're talking about here with Web 2.0) will be unleashed only by using the power available in the client effectively.
Ajax is starting to move things in the right direction, with the clients starting to do some of
the work. To me, Java is necessary as Javascript is too slow and primitive for such a task.
My company has made FORscene. (It's a pity people don't like the tone of that article, but that's Wikipedia!).
The application allows real time editing of full frame rate video, then publishing and then hosting for Java playback.
There are increasingly many applications like this one, which are only possible because the client does the work. 
The point is that, as people get more sophisticated, the client is getting more important. Stephen B Streater 11:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Client section