Saturday, February 21, 2009

Web two.. point... oh?

I'm having a hard time reconciling myself with the term 'Web 2.0'. I just don't get it.

Technically, and this is according to Wikipedia, "The term 'Web 2.0' describes the changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aim to enhance creativity, communications, secure information sharing, collaboration and functionality of the web."

But doesn't the qualifier '2.0' denote that something is a new and different version of something that came before it?

When flight progressed beyond the realm of Army/Navy/Air Force pilots and grew to include passengers, it wasn't called 'Flying 2.0'. A plane was and still is a plane (although pilots still seem to prefer 'aircraft'). It wasn't until flight moved into a new area, space, that the term spaceflight was used to separate flying in the two realms.

To me, it looks like 'Web 2.0' is just a fancy name given to the natural progression of technology as it enters into the mainstream. Web.20 isn't exactly a new Internet. It's the same Internet, it’s just spread across a lot more places and available to a lot more people.

So, at what point did the Internet become 'Web 2.0'? Did someone sign up on AOL one day, push the Internet over the edge, have a lengthy e-mail correspondence and poof? Suddenly the Internet became more social and interactive than informative?

There are still static websites that don't do anything but let the reader read the page then navigate away from it. At the same time, back in the days of really early Internet, it was used primarily as a means for scholars and scientists to share information from quite a log way away. To me, this is a very interactive use of the Internet, one that’s not that different from the Internet today.

The Internet now, one could argue, is interactive in a different way. But if this new interactive social media Internet is based on things like social bookmarking and instant messenger, I don’t really see enough of a difference between ‘primitive’ Internet and ‘Web 2.0’. All these forms of social media existed, just in early, slower forms. Is it really necessary to denote modern Internet as something entirely different? Do we need ‘Web 2.0’?

1 comment:

  1. Seems even the Internet has a brand. So if it didn't have a name, what would we call the 'change'? How would we tweet it? : )

    ReplyDelete