Web 2.0

I explored a few of the award winners, and some I was already familiar with, such as Craigslist. I was not clear about what makes them "web 2.0" as opposed to "more-cool-things-you-can-do-on-a-website."

The awards website had a link to follow, which I did, and found this definition: "Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform ... 'architecture of participation,'... ". Well, that certainly obviates obfuscation, doesn't it?

More research nudged into the area of Web 2.0 sites being enriched by the users, such as the Threadless site which sells T-shirts using pictures of people who have already bought the T-shirts and sent in their photos.

It's an interesting thought. I'm not sure it works. It's based on the premise that the group as a homogenized whole is more knowledgeable/influential than individuals. This is not true, as you know from general election results, or the fact that fear of peanut allergies is now driving what's happening in most school cafeterias and airline terminals, even though for the past 50 years or more, it hasn't been an issue anyplace. Very vocal, highly politicized individuals and narrow interests effectively and frequently enslave the majority, who are too worried about being politically incorrect to speak up for themselves. But I digress...

The other issue is that if Web 2.0 content is shaped by my input and interests, how do get input about things I never knew I had an interest in? I was listening to NPR this morning (I love NPR) and I heard featurettes about things I would never have imagined existed, no less were fascinating. Web 2.0 is the anti-NPR.

Bottom line: it's irrelevant exactly what Web 2.0 is. It's new, some of it is very interesting, some of it is dumb, but it's not going away. Who cares what you call it?