Comments on: Web 2.0 explained better http://blogs.walkerart.org/newmedia/2006/04/19/web-20-explained-better/ Technology at the Walker Art Center Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:29:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: eric http://blogs.walkerart.org/newmedia/2006/04/19/web-20-explained-better/#comment-959 eric Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:19:05 +0000 http://blogs.walkerart.org/newmedia/2006/04/19/web-20-explained-better/#comment-959 I know you don't like the term and as a term i don't particularly like it either, I've always prefered Social Filtering, or Collaborative Media, or really anything that has language with inherent meaning. Especially because "web 2.0" is a technical sounding term people expect it to be precise, but it's not, in a lot of ways it reminds me of the whole confusion caused by the "old" DHTML term. To be perfectly fair and balanced I should also mention that wikipedia entry I listed above has an entire section <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#Criticism" rel="nofollow">dedicated to criticism</a> of "web 2.o" including quotes like this. "Skeptics argue that the term is little more than a buzzword, or that it means whatever its proponents want it to mean in order to convince their customers, investors and the media that they are creating something fundamentally new, rather than continuing to develop and use well-established technologies" All that said, that is the term that caught on and thats what a lot of writing is about so that's what people are trying to make sense of. I know you don’t like the term and as a term i don’t particularly like it either, I’ve always prefered Social Filtering, or Collaborative Media, or really anything that has language with inherent meaning. Especially because “web 2.0″ is a technical sounding term people expect it to be precise, but it’s not, in a lot of ways it reminds me of the whole confusion caused by the “old” DHTML term.

To be perfectly fair and balanced I should also mention that wikipedia entry I listed above has an entire section dedicated to criticism of “web 2.o” including quotes like this.

“Skeptics argue that the term is little more than a buzzword, or that it means whatever its proponents want it to mean in order to convince their customers, investors and the media that they are creating something fundamentally new, rather than continuing to develop and use well-established technologies”

All that said, that is the term that caught on and thats what a lot of writing is about so that’s what people are trying to make sense of.

]]> By: Brent Gustafson http://blogs.walkerart.org/newmedia/2006/04/19/web-20-explained-better/#comment-958 Brent Gustafson Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:27:10 +0000 http://blogs.walkerart.org/newmedia/2006/04/19/web-20-explained-better/#comment-958 USENET? Academia? Search engines? Wouldn't those all be considered Web 2.0 with that explaination? Obviously I'm not high on the term. It just seems like the natural evolution of what came before it. It's always felt to me like a solution looking for a problem. USENET? Academia? Search engines? Wouldn’t those all be considered Web 2.0 with that explaination?

Obviously I’m not high on the term. It just seems like the natural evolution of what came before it. It’s always felt to me like a solution looking for a problem.

]]>