by Ellyssa Kroski

Phase Two of the World Wide Web has begun and with it comes a renaissance of participation and regeneration. What is Web 2.0 all about? Proponents of the concept claim that it is the second generation of the Internet. This exciting evolution sees the user as the center of the virtual universe. It is an inclusive universe, taking into account the needs of all users, not just those which make up the mainstream.

The Web 2.0 mindset is about using the wisdom of crowds to develop better software, designing simple and straightforward applications efficiently in response to user inclination, and sharing that technology so that others can build upon it.

There has been a fundamental shift in the paradigm of how we think about and use the Web. Instead of reading static web pages, users are now cataloging their personal libraries, organizing their favorite bookmarks, writing online documents, and sharing their information with others through new generation social software. What began with blogs and wikis has blossomed into an all-encompassing and standard phenomenon of sharing, collaboration, and user involvement.

But what some consider a rally cry; others deem a lot of “bunk”. The concept of Web 2.0 has ignited quite a conversation within the blogosphere, inspiring some and infuriating others.

The Hype
Tech media guru Tim O’Reilly and cohort Dale Dougherty of MediaLive conceived of the term “Web 2.0” in 2004 as a way to designate the post-crash Web, and at the same time name an upcoming conference. By September 2005, a Google search for Web 2.0 returned more than 9.5 million results.(26)

The term has since developed a robust definition with O’Reilly and others elucidating its finer points. Web 2.0 has come to mean a business model or technical strategy which adheres to a particular set of tenets. These principles have been illustrated visually in the now famous “Web 2.0 Meme Map”. (A meme in this sense represents an idea or concept which quickly passes from mind to mind throughout a community alike to contagion).

Built upon the best practices of Web 1.0, Web 2.0 companies strive to learn from exemplars such as Google and Amazon which survived the crash. Droves of new Internet startups have formed and are being led not by venture capitalists, but by techies who are passionate about their projects.(3) They are more frugal than their predecessors, their dreams less grandiose. Web 2.0 companies earn popularity not through traditional advertising, but by word-of-mouth. It is generally accepted that Web 2.0 companies acknowledge the following set of principles:

The Web is a Platform. The web is where everything is happening right now. It is the base, or programming platform, for which developers are designing new software. Gone is the idea that the user will have to install multiple applications on his/her computer, they will all be available on the Web in the form of a service or subscription. This embraces the slogan of Sun Microsystems, who in the mid ‘80s insisted that “the network is the computer”. They envisioned a future of thin-client desktops, with all software installed on the network.(16) The Web, simply put, is a giant network.

The Network Effect. The notion that the network, or system, improves as the number of users increase is fundamental to Web 2.0. Anyone who has ever used Bittorrent to download something knows that the more people who are downloading the file, the faster it goes because users are simultaneously uploading. Web 2.0 technologies are built around an “architecture of participation” in which the user adds value as a side effect of use. This addresses the motivation behind the value which is added by the user. It is a selfish one. In example, the user downloads a desired file via a Bittorrent client while coincidentally uploading it at the same time. The end result is cooperation, but the impetus is personal need.(25) Another illustration of value added as a secondary side effect is the folksonomy, a naturally created classification system which arises as a result of user-based tagging. A user tags an object such as a bookmark in order to remember it later, that information is then added to the global tag cloud and helps to create a folksonomy.

Harnessing Collective Intelligence. Companies that adhere to Web 2.0 principles understand how to harness the collective intelligence to make their systems better. A collective intelligence is achieved when a critical mass of participation is reached within a site or system, allowing the participants to act as a filter for what is valuable. The user reviews on Amazon.com sort out the worthy resources from the inadequate. Citysearch’s user-created reviews identify quality restaurants. In Google’s PageRank system, websites which are linked to more often hold more weight and rise to the top of search results pages. In all of these cases the network effect comes into play in that the systems get better as more people participate in them.

The folksonomy is an excellent example of the collective intelligence at work. Born out of the aggregate of user-created tags on sites such as del.icio.us and Flickr, a folksonomy provides an inclusive categorization scheme. The collective intelligence opens up a world of nuances which aren’t available in other systems. In the case of a folksonomy they offer tags such as film alongside those for cinema, movies, and motion pictures. In this way, the collective intelligence offers signposts to both value and discovery.

The new generation Web offers a two-way communication with the user, one that involves both reading and writing. No other technology demonstrates this better than the blog. “If an essential part of Web 2.0 is harnessing collective intelligence, turning the web into a kind of global brain, the blogosphere is the equivalent of constant mental chatter in the forebrain, the voice we hear in all of our heads”.(25) Through blogs we can access the collective intelligence and the Zeitgeist. Often referred to as the “echo chamber”, the blogosphere provides a window into what is popular and newsworthy. Through user comments and trackbacks (a referrer which links back to a blog post) we discover what is valuable.

Data is the Next Intel Inside. Web 2.0 emphasizes the ownership and creation of user-produced data or content within a system. The next generation of Web developers realize that it is the auction listings that make EBay so successful, the user reviews that are the unique value of Amazon.com. Their goal is to design applications which are conducive to and will naturally generate this type of original content. Encouraging that participation is vital to Web 2.0 companies because the more people who contribute, the better the network effect and the collective intelligence.

End of the Software Release Cycle. Software has traditionally been released as a product. It has been packaged and sold to users who have to install it on their computers. Patches and upgrades were periodically released as versions 1.1, 1.3, etc. pending a completely new version. On the Web there is no need to install programs and patches, software is delivered as a service. Upgrades and future versions happen seamlessly, most without the user’s knowledge.

In the Web 2.0 environment, developers are much more attuned to the way the user interacts with the software. They use that knowledge to increase usability and add new features. The Web 2.0 developer is able to “test market” features and get immediate feedback from their users. They consider the user a partner in the software development process. This characteristic of Web 2.0 is also referred to as the “perpetual beta” because the application is constantly being monitored and tested for usability and improved accordingly. There is never a “finished” version or product.

Less is More. The philosophy behind developing for Web 2.0 is “less is more”. Its objectives are simplicity and efficiency. Startups are requiring minimal funding to design applications which do one thing, do it well, and aren’t top-heavy with ancillary features. This provides the user with a specialized application which has a very low learning curve. By designing lightweight, these companies are able to respond quickly to market needs. One such company is 37 Signals, an up-and-coming Web 2.0 contender whose motto is “join us and say goodbye to bloated software”. One of their products, Ta-da List allows users to create online to-do lists, that’s it, that’s all.

Syndication. Sharing, not controlling is paramount to the new Web. Authoring information in a structured format which can be used and re-used is crucial for Web 2.0. It is part of the “some rights reserved” model of creating and distributing information. It is a model in which you control your data to the edge of your system and then you let it go.

A great example of this is RSS or Really Simple Syndication. A publisher (or blogger) publishes an article or post to their site. An XML page is created (blogging software does this automatically) which users can access via an RSS link. That article or blog post can be redistributed in any format the user prefers as long as it doesn’t violate copyright. Most often it is disseminated into their news aggregator, such as Bloglines, and can be read either on or offline. In Web 1.0 there was no standardized distribution method.

Design for Re-Usability. Not only does the Web provide a foundation for creating individual software programs, but through Web API’s, or Application Programming Interfaces, it is possible to combine the functionality of multiple applications. “Evocative of Dr. Frankenstein building a monster in his attic laboratory using body pieces he found lying around his neighborhood, people with a little skill can create new applications using common elements found lying around the Web in almost no time at all.” (36)

The combination of two or more individual Web applications to create a new one is called a Mashup. The best known mashup to-date is Housingmaps.com. It is a combination of real estate listings from Craigslist.com with Google Maps which allows house and apartment hunters to easily locate real estate listings. The ProgrammableWeb has a mashup database listing hundreds of such Web 2.0 applications.

Software for More than One Device. In today’s world, users not only access information through their computers but through a slew of other devices such as iPods, PDA’s, cell phones, etc. Web 2.0 developers strive to create their software so that it is compatible with more than just the computer. Yahoo! Go has created a suite of programs which will span users’ desktops, mobile phones and their TVs. Similarly Microsoft Windows Vista, the next Microsoft operating system will offer a Media Center with DirectTV on users’ PCs, as well as HDTV and DVD which can be played on portable devices. Windows Vista will be accessible through users TVs with an extender via the X-Box 360.

Rich User Experiences. Using Web 2.0 technologies such as Ajax, (Asynchronous JavaScript And XML), or Ruby on Rails, developers can offer users a more robust experience. With applications such as Protopage and Netvibes, users can create a modular start page which displays their RSS feeds, email, personal to-do lists, bookmarks, and more. Today’s Web applications are interactive and participatory as well as social.

The Long Tail. The long tail, a phrase first discussed by Chris Anderson of Wired Magazine, consists of the interests of the minority that lie at the “tail” end of a power law, or statistical distribution, which charts the most popular topics. When combined, these non-mainstream, or niche interests far outnumber the popular ones. Between 25 and 40% of Amazon’s sales come from the long tail and similarly one fifth of all Netflix rentals are from titles other than their top 3,000.(1) The next generation Web recognizes and embraces the long tail. Consequently, Web 2.0 applications are designed to serve not only popular but fringe interests.

Social Software. Largely, Web 2.0 is about community and collaboration through social software. These new applications help users streamline their daily lives, organize their data, and share it with others. Users can store and share photos through Flickr, meet others on Friendster, and Digg for news stories. For more tech savvy users Web 2.0 also includes sharing and access to APIs, RSS feeds, and pod/video casting services. From the user’s perspective, the Web is exciting again. It is about access to a dizzying array of new tools which have become available on the Internet, most of them for free.

The Hullabaloo
Technology blogger Stowe Boyd recently held a survey on his blog asking respondents whether or not we should drop the term “Web 2.0”. In nearly a split decision, 90 people responded yes, while 81 said no.

At first glance, Web 2.0 is an innocuous term used to describe the happenings on the new Web. It is a catchy moniker which seems to be bridging the gap between the “Web people” and the rest of the world. So, what’s so terrible?

Contrarians posit that the expression is little more than a marketing slogan meant to garner large registration fees at techie conferences. This has incited a heated exchange amongst some of the most well-known technology blogs on the Internet. The following are some of the objections raised concerning the popular albeit controversial term.

Web 2.0 Doesn’t Exist. Critics of Web 2.0 take issue not only with the terminology but with the concept itself. They claim that there is too much happening on the Web today to be categorized with one all-encompassing term such as Web 2.0. They feel that the label lacks any true meaning; “it’s a big, vague, nebulous cloud of pure architectural nothingness”.(35) Cynics suggest that the designation was created by sly marketers in order to sell conference seats. “It is a contrivance, meant to imply a unified movement or wave toward a better Web”.(34) While they don’t deny that there have been recent advances on the Web, they do not ascribe them to a new generation of thought that the term Web 2.0 implies. “Web business would have recovered; new technologies and business models would have emerged whether or not anybody coined the label Web 2.0”.(26) Detractors maintain that Web 2.0 is not anything new, that Web 1.0 never ended and that the title is a “meaningless buzzword”.

Supporters have been quick to respond citing the irrefutable advances taking place on the Web as proof positive that we have entered the next phase of the Web. “There is a new sensibility about web applications — how they are conceived, designed, built, marketed and sold — that in aggregate is truly different that what preceded it”.(6) They counter that Web 2.0 is indeed a new phenomenon, one that will revitalize the Web. Enthusiasts who have been inspired by the excitement and innovation that Web 2.0 implies assert that it is a “slogan of a people’s army”(2), a label to “indicate a revolution, where the mistakes and bad design choices of an initial release are fixed, or at least countered”.(6)

Web 2.0 is Amoral. Some critics question not the existence of web 2.0 but its morality. Former editor of the Harvard Business Review, Nicholas Carr likens the Web to a “vessel of quasi-religious longing” and claims that proponents of Web 2.0 speak using the language of rapture. He displays scorn for the benefits of Web 2.0 including community, participation and amateurism and disdain for the collective intelligence. “The promoters of Web 2.0 venerate the amateur and distrust the professional”.(8) Carr looks to Wikipedia to ask “when the intelligence in ‘collective intelligence’ will begin to manifest itself”.(8) His article points to the lack of accuracy in the grassroots encyclopedia as well as in amateur publishing in the form of blogs. He also raises the concern that the very participatory nature of Web 2.0 brings with it a threat to traditional publishing. He frets that blogging, with its lack of editors and fact-checkers and its predilection towards opinion over unbiased reporting, may one day supplant the long-established mainstream media. “Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can’t imagine anything more frightening.”(8)

Adherents of Web 2.0 point to the fact that Carr was able to publish his article due to the two-way communication made possible through Web 2.0 and blogging. Supporters also point to the recent Nature study which put Wikipedia to the test alongside the authoritative Britannica. Testing 42 science-related entries in each publication, Wikipedia was found to contain an average of four inaccuracies while Britannica averaged three. As Dion Hinchcliffe succinctly states; “Web 2.0 continues to be extensively misunderstood yet a vital touchstone for the future of the Web”.(15)

Summary
The Web has entered a “golden” age of participation, the era of the amateur. A time of radical decentralization with innovations such as social software, the folksonomy, user tagging, the longtail. RSS, trackbacks, permalinks, comments, blogs, wikis, API’s, mashups, Ruby on Rails, AJAX and the Zeitgeist. Whether that is good or bad, moral or immoral is subjective, and what we will end up calling it is still under debate.

References

1. Anderson, Chris. “The Long Tail.” Wired, 12.10 October 2004. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html Viewed 10/30/05.
2. Arrington, Michael. “Traitors in Our Midst”. CrunchNotes, 12/19/05. http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=88 Viewed 1/05/06.
3. Battelle, John. “Building a Better Boom”. The New York Times, 11/18/05. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/opinion/18battelle. html?ex=1289970000&en=24386e654b2c02ed&ei=5088 &partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Viewed 1/4/06.
4. Boyd, Steve. “Dion Hinchcliffe on Web 2.0 Thread”. Get Real, 12/29/05. http://www.corante.com/getreal/archives/2005/12/29/
   dion_hinchcliffe_on_web_20_thread.php Viewed 1/4/06.
5. Boyd, Steve. “Should We Drop the Term ‘Web 2.0′”? Get Real, 1/6/06. http://www.corante.com/getreal/archives/2006/01/06/ should_we_drop_the_term_web_20.phpViewed 1/9/06.
6. Boyd, Steve. “Traitors in Our Midst: Web 2.0 Antihype”. Get Real, 12/21/05. http://www.corante.com/getrea l/archives/2005/12/21/ traitors_in_our_midst_web_20_antihype.php Viewed 1/6/06.
7. Canter, Marc. “Snarky Castles in the Sky - from One Believer to a Trio of Naysayers”. Marc’s Voice, 12/22/05. http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2005/12/snarky-castles-in-the-sky-
   from-one-believer-to-a-trio-of-nay-sayers Viewed 1/4/06.
8. Carr, Nicholas. “The Amorality of Web 2.0″. Rough Type, 10/3/05. http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/ the_amorality_o.php Viewed 1/5/06.
9. Graham, Paul. “Web 2.0″. Paul Graham, November 2005. http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html Viewed 1/6/05.
10. Hinchcliffe, Dion. “Cover Story: Web 2.0 The Global SOA”. SOA Web Services Journal, 12/22/05 Vol. 5, Iss. 12. http://webservices.sys-con.com/read/164532.htmViewed 1/6/06.
11. Hinchcliffe, Dion. “Review of the Year’s Best Web 2.0 Explanations”. Dion Hinchcliffe’s Web 2.0 Blog, 12/21/05. http://web2.wsj2.com/review_of_the_years_ best_web_20_explanations.htmViewed 1/4/06.
12. Hinchcliffe, Dion. “The Web 2.0 is Here”. Dion Hinchcliffe’s Web 2.0 Blog, 9/24/05. http://web2.wsj2.com/web2ishere.htmViewed 1/4/06.
13. Hinchcliffe, Dion. “The Web 2.0 Revolution Spawns Offshoots”. Dion Hinchcliffe’s Web 2.0 Blog, 1/7/06. http://web2.wsj2.com/the_web_20_revolution_spawns_ offshoots.htmViewed 1/9/06.
14. Hinchcliffe, Dion. “Web 2.0 Predictions for 2006″. Dion Hinchcliffe’s Web 2.0 Blog, 1/1/06. http://web2.wsj2.com/web_20_predictions_ for_2006.htmViewed 1/9/06.
15. Hinchcliffe, Dion. “Where Are We With Web 2.0?”. Dion Hinchcliffe’s Web 2.0 Blog, 12/23/05. http://web2.wsj2.com/where_are_we_with_ web_20.htmViewed 1/4/06.
16. Kelly, Kevin. “We are the Web”. Wired Magazine, August 2005, Issue 13.08. http://www.wired.com/wired/ archive/13.08/tech.htmlViewed 12/29/05.
17. MacManus, Richard. “Cats Eat Pigeons: Why Web 2.0 has Jumped the Shark”. Read/Write Web, 12/19/05. http://readwriteweb.com/archives/ cat_eats_pigeon.phpViewed 1/5/06.
18. MacManus, Richard. “Defining Web as Platform”. Read/Write Web, 12/8/05. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/ defining_web_as.phpViewed 1/6/06.
19. MacManus, Richard. “Web 2.0 Naysaying Reaches an All-Time High (or is it Low)”. Read/Write Web, 10/22/05. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/ web_20_naysayin.phpViewed 1/4/06.
20. MacManus, Richard. “Web 2.0 Weekly Wrap-up Nov - 2 Dec 2005″. Read/Write Web, 12/2/05. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_weekly _w_44.phpViewed 12/29/05.
21. McKendrick, Joe. “Yes, Russell, There is a Web 2.0″. Service-Oriented Architecture, 12/20/05. http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=503Viewed 1/4/05.
22. Miller, Paul. “Web 2.0: Building the New Library”. Ariadne, October 2005, Issue 45. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/ Viewed 12/29/05.
23. Oliveira, Frederico. “Why Web 2.0 Makes Sense”. WeBreakStuff, 12/22/05. http://webreakstuff.com/blog/?p=162 Viewed 1/9/06.
24. O’Reilly, Tim. “Web 2.0: Compact Definition”. O’Reilly Radar, 10/01/05. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/ web_20_compact_definition.html Viewed 12/29/05.
25. O’Reilly, Tim. “What is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software”. O’Reilly Network, 9.30/05. http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228Viewed 12/29/05.
26. Pallatto, John. “Web 2.0 Lacks Meaning, Magic”. eWeek, 12/27/05. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1906053,00.asp?kc=EWNKT0209KTX1K0100440 Viewed 12/29/05.
27. Porter, Joshua. “Introduction to Web 2.0″. Squidoo, 2005. http://www.squidoo.com/introtoweb20Viewed 12/28/05.
28. Porter, Joshua. “Why I use the Term ‘Web 2.0′”. Bokardo, 12/20/05. http://bokardo.com/archives/why-i-use-web20 Viewed 1/4/05.
29. Rapoza, Jim. “What Web 2.0 Means to You; The Next Generation of the Web is Agnostic and Interactive”. EWeek, 1/2/06, Vol. 23, Iss. 1, p. 38. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1907188,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000613 Viewed 12/29/05.
30. Robinson, D. Keith. “Web 2.0? Why Should We Care?” Publish, 9/20/05. http://www.publish.com/article2/0,1759,1860653,00.asp?kc=PBRSS05039TX1K0000781 Viewed 12/29/05.
31. Schauer, Brandon. “Experience Attributes: Crucial DNA of Web 2.0″. Adaptive Path, 12/1/05. http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/ archives/000547.phpViewed 1/6/06.
32. Sessum, Jeneane. “Web 2.0-athon”. Allied, 12/22/05. http://allied.blogspot.com/2005/12/web-20-athon.htmlViewed 1/5/06.
33. Shaw, Russell. “My ‘Web 2.0 Doesn’t Exist’ Post Kicks up a Ruckus”. IP Telephony, VoIP, Broadband, 12/21/05. http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=813 Viewed 1/5/06.
34. Shaw, Russell. “Web 2.0? It Doesn’t Exist”. IP Telephony, VoIP, Broadband, 12/17/05. http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=805Viewed 1/5/06.
35. Spolsky, Joel. “Architecture Astronauts are Back”. Joel on Software, 10/21/05. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/ 2005/10/21.htmlViewed 1/9/06.
36. Spool, Jared M. “Web 2.0: The Power Behind the Hype”. User Interface 10 Conference, 9/7/05. http://www.uie.com/events/uiconf/articles/web_2_power Viewed 12/29/05.
37. Stock, Ethan. “Three Postulates: The ‘Long Tail’ <> User-Created Content”. OnoTech, 10/24/05. http://onotech.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_ onotech_archive.htmlViewed 12/28/05.
38. Winer, Dave. “Busted, Explained”. Scripting News, 12/22/05. http://www.scripting.com/2005/12/ 22.html#bustedExplainedViewed 12/29/05.