What is Web 2.0?

There is no question that the internet environment has changed dramatically as we have entered the age of participation. The name web2.0 was coined by O'Reilly and MediaLive International in a brainstorming session to contrast to what was labelled web1.0.


The differences between web1.0 and web2.0 were descibed by examples such as:

• From publishing to participating
• From Britannica to Wikipedia
• From personal websites to blogs
• From page views to costs per click
• From directories to tagging

All of these feature indicate a mover from the collective, passive audience, to an individual, active audience. As Axel discussed in his podcast, the rules surrounding Web2.0 focus on the delivering of software as a service. Google epitomises this service paradigm as it works on "no scheduled software releases, just continuous improvement and no licensing or sale, just usage." This contrasts to Web1.0, which focused on the delivering of software as a product. Web2.0 then focuses on allowing these services to be re -used and re-devloped by others and harnessing collective itelligence.

As Ryan Singel described: Web2.0 is "based on social software where users generate content, rather than simply consume it, and on open programming interfaces that let developers add to a web service or get at data. It is an arena where the web rather than the desktop is the dominant platform, and organization appears spontaneously through the actions of the group, for example, in the creation of folksonomies created through tagging." The Long tail, and DIY communities such as citizen journalism and open source software are all part of the Web2.0 era.

When researching the concept of Web 2.0, i came across this interesting point made by Paul Graham when discussing democracy as a feature of Web 2.0:
"We now have several examples to prove that amateurs can surpass professionals, when they have the right kind of system to channel their efforts. Wikipedia may be the most famous. Experts have given Wikipedia middling reviews, but they miss the critical point: it's good enough. And it's free, which means people actually read it. On the web, articles you have to pay for might as well not exist. Even if you were willing to pay to read them yourself, you can't link to them. They're not part of the conversation."
Does this mean that in web2.0, the quality of information is decreasing? Are DIY communities such as the Wikipedia and citizen journalism sites changing what we view as ‘news’ or information?

This also raises question as to where web2.0 will lead. Will we eventually see a change entirely to citizen and community production that will replace professionals in the industry? This possible threat of participatory users on the entertainment industry has been dismissed by InterActiveCorp CEO Barry Diller who argued that "There are very few people in very few closets in very few rooms that are really talented and can't get out. People with talent and expertise at making entertainment products are not going to be displaced by 1,800 people coming up with their videos that they think are going to have an appeal." This seems like a overdramatised view, but i agree that it is unlikely.