[Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0

[Alexis Turner]

In other words, Web 1.0 was something created by individuals, and Web 2.0 is the 
Web through the lens of business, user-leveraged experience, and market drive 
research.
-Alexis


On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Lane DeNicola wrote:

::Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:11:50 -0400
::From: Lane DeNicola <denicola at alum.rpi.edu>
::Reply-To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
::To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
::Subject: Re: [Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0
::
::Mark Warschaur mentioned O'Reilly Media as the cited progenitor of the
::term Web 2.0, and I'd argue Tim O'Reilly's (rather lengthy) 2005
::article--appropriately titled "What is Web 2.0?"--is probably still
::the best general source on the concept:
::
::http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
::
::According to the concept as built there, Alex Halavais is effectively
::right, that the term denotes "companies that have attracted funding or
::make money on the web over the last few years," but also that "it
::suggests some kind of breaking point with earlier approaches to
::design," to wit:
::
::"In exploring the seven principles above, we've highlighted some of
::the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we've explored
::demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others.
::Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core
::competencies of Web 2.0 companies:
::
::    * Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
::    * Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get
::richer as more people use them
::    * Trusting users as co-developers
::    * Harnessing collective intelligence
::    * Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
::    * Software above the level of a single device
::    * Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models
::
::The next time a company claims that it's "Web 2.0," test their
::features against the list above. The more points they score, the more
::they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one
::area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven."
::
::I'd advocate the use of the term, if only because of its circulation
::as industry vernacular, but its use should be well-qualified.  As a
::fluid construct (one used here to designate "companies with certain
::competencies," rather than, say, qualities of specific technologies)
::perhaps the best course would be to qualify it as "O'Reilly's (or
::whomever's) conceptualization of Web 2.0."
::
::-- 
::Lane DeNicola
::Doctoral Candidate | Dept. of Science & Technology Studies
::Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
::http://www.nacresky.com/lad
::Tried the Science Studies Search Engine? <http://www.nacresky.com/ssse>
::_______________________________________________
::The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
::is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
::Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
::
::Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
::http://www.aoir.org/
::