Talk:Web 3.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Internet (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Web 3.0[edit]

Its a 'media wank' term —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good - then by that measure some people might not know what it means, so let's define it here. --Gilgongo (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Since even the New York times refers to "Web 3.0" it may not be a bad idea to create a corresponding article (see NY Times article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The article clearly states: But commercial interest in Web 3.0 — or the “semantic Web,” for the idea of adding meaning — is only now emerging. I think that the most appropriate action, if any, is to redirect this to Semantic Web. Mindmatrix 15:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the term has been used widely in fact. Do a Google search on it and you will see. Also see this link: charting the history of the term. It would appear the wikipedia staff is revealing an editorial bias in not having a page about this term. You may not like the term, but to accurately reflect what people are talking about, it should be represented. In addition at the recent Web 2.0 conference in SF many companies gave presentations that used the term. I beleive that this should have a disambiguation page rather than an alias to the semantic web entry -- the disambiguation page should link to Web 2.0, Semantic Web, and whatever else you think ought to be there.

Come back when it meets WP:NEO. Artw 01:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The term "web 3.0" does exist, but since it has no meaning that I can glean apart from "semantic web", it should be a redirect. Why should web 3.0 be a dab page that links to web 2.0? Mindmatrix 16:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. So what exactly is the meaning of "Web 2.0" then? Can you define it? If there is a page for that term, which let's face it, is not exactly defined in anyone's mind, then why not Web 3.0? You can't have it both ways. Either these terms have meaning or they don't. If you ask 50 people to define Web 2.0 you will get 50 different definitions. The question should not therefore be do you, or I, or anyone know the definition -- the question should be is this a term that is widely used? And the answer is, yes. A google search on "web 3.0" (with quotes) returns 611,000 results as of today. The Markoff NYT article of Sunday, which sought to define the term as indicated a more intelligent web using a variety of technologies (not necessarily synonymous with the semantic web), is among the most widely discussed and cited topics in the Web community right now. In the blogosphere alone nearly every major blogger has chimed in on this. Some agree, some don't. That's not up to us to decide. The wikipedia is supposed to mirror the world, not editorialize it. You may not think the term deserves its own page, but 611,000 pages in Google say otherwise. A page about the topic is warranted, but if you can't swallow that, a dab page that links to web 2.0, the semantic web, artificial intelligence, RDF, SPARQL, and other relevant terms could be a vaible measure until the community defines it further.

That argument was raised and discounted in the deletion debate. Artw 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys should read the Web 2.0 definition in the wikipedia. If you believe THAT counts as a definition, then I see no reason why Web 3.0 does not. I would suggest, along the same lines as that defnition this page should say: "Web 3.0, a phrase coined by John Markoff of the New York Times in 2006, refers to a supposed third generation of Internet-based services -- such as sites that utilize the semantic web, natural language search, microformats, data mining, group recommendations, and artificial intelligence -- that emphasize language understanding, structured data, learning, inferencing and intelligent automation in order to facilitate greater productivity for users.

Web 3.0 is not synonymous with "semantic web" -- it groups together a number of concepts that are forming into a new generation of technology on the Web. The Semantic Web is just one of the covered concepts, but there are others -- artificial intelligence, data mining, microformats, etc.

The Web 2.0 has it's own problems, not least an over-emphasis on O'Reily, but it's existance is justified by thre popularity of the term and the broad concensus over it's core meaning (though it certainly gets a lot fuzzier at the edges). No such concensus exists for "Web 3.0". Artw 23:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What proof do you have of the "broad concensus" around the term "Web 2.0?" Ask several people to define it and I guarantee you there will be no consensus in their answers. Web 2.0 is a marketing hype term that has no clearly defined edges at all. It is basically "whatever new stuff happened on the Web from 2004 - 2006." That's not exactly clearly defined. I'm all for having standards of definition -- but I also want to see consistency in how those standards are applied. The only evidence of any consensus around the term "Web 2.0" is from doing a google search and that fact that O'Reilly runs a conference of that name. But what about all the Google results for "Web 3.0" and Markoff's article, and the fact that numerous companies who presented at the Web 2.0 conference actually used the term "Web 3.0" in their presentations as a label for what they were enabling? You can't have it both ways. Delete the Web 2.0 page as well, or add one for Web 3.0. To do otherwise would be inconsistent in applying your own standards. Either their is clear consensus or there is not. Have you personally read any of the 611,000 pages on google about "Web 3.0?" Perhaps you should. If the New York Times plus 611,000 pages isn't enough to convince you that there is a term of value here, then what will? At what point do you decide there is consensus? When O'Reilly blesses the term? Is that what it takes to convince you? That seems pretty biased to me. Look at the proposed definition above -- it's exactly the same pattern as the Web 2.0 definition, but substitute John Markoff for Tim O'Reilly and substitute semantic and intelligent apps for the social and collaborative apps of Web 2.0. Seems pretty clear cut to me. At least you might want to do a google search for, in quotes, "Web 3.0" and perhaps also do the same on technorati. You might be surprised -- there is more consensus around the term than you might think.

If you want to nominate Web2.0 for deletion please go right ahead. Artw 23:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey take a look at this! A leading panel on the next wave of the Web, including Jerry Yang and other luminaries -- all talking about "Web 3.0" -- hmmm... more proof that this meme is real and deserves it's own page in the Wikipedia...

Eh? He's talking about it as if it;s some kind of video thing, then adds "Everyone brings their own perspective, bias to putting a frame around Web X.X.". It's really not that clever or interesting that people are adding 1 to web 2.0 and coming up with "web 3.0". When there is an actually meaning to the term that significant numbers of people agree upon it'll be possible to put up an article that will meet WP:NEO and not immediately be deleted. Artw 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the page has been deleted 5 times and restored once by admins indicates that "web 3.0 " does conform to the WP:NEO specifications. I searched for this word in the first place because Amazon Mechanical Turk had a HIT created by Amazon Requester Inc. specifically asking "What are the top 3 top characteristics you predict will be part of web 3.0?"
Although "web 3.0" does not have a concrete definition yet, it is a term that is gaining popularity. Not having a page for it might constitute blatant omission. My opinion is to let the page run its course...Wikipedians will be able to address the problems associated with the ambiguous definition and find the appropriate sources.
Here is a Google Trends snap shot of web 3.0 vs. web 2.0 searches. As you can see, the number are about the same in 2005, until 2006, where the number of web 2.0 searches skyrocketed. However, web 3.0 still have relatively large number of searches. Jumping cheese Misc-tpvgames.gif Cont@ctFace-smile-big.svg 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this Wikipedia article should be undeleted. Although people disagree about what 'Web 3.0' should actually be, there seems to be a broad consensus that 'Web 3.0' is the next generation of the web after Web 2.0. A specific discussion of these visions with appropriate sources would meet WP:NEO and would not qualify for immediately deletion. Further, there is significant interest in what 'Web 3.0' is to warrant an entry. pierrerosen 17:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the undelete and source referenced discussion motion. The Google Trends chart for December 2006 is in, and the search activity for Web 3.0 has nearly doubled. There's also a noticeable drop off in web 2.0 activity, although it still dwarfs the former at this time. I'm sure the January results will be much more interesting as there's seems to be commotion in development communities to capitalize on the rising popularity of this term. MOAIASP 04:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see a locked page on this topic. I came to my favourite reference, the Wikipedia, to find out what this Web 3.0 talk was about and found this locked page. I notice that there's a funding drive going on, and I usually donate, but I think I'll withold parting with any of my cash until this topic gets unlocked. Ron 13:33, December 26 2006 (GCT)

Hehehe, bribing Wikipedia into unlocking the page! just kidding =D Jumping cheese Cont@ct 01:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
How does one describe the increasing disappointing behaviour of wikipedia admins? By pointing to this article.

My opinion[edit]

As a computer scientist, I'm quite surprised to see this article deleted and even protected from re-creation. Web 3.0 is currently topical: aside what all newspapers of international fame say about that, it is a phenomenon fully in development (try to write "Web 3.0" on Google...) and it is also the subject of a homonymous meeting in Paris whose coverage was also featured here in Italy by La Repubblica, second-highest newspaper in the country in numbers of paid-for copies. See also for more info about the meeting. There's so much to write about it. --Angelo 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As one person who recently created this article (to have it restored then deleted again), I agree with you. With people like Tim Berners-Lee using the term, I think it is well worth an article. Semantic web is one evolutionary construct for the Internet, but Web 3.0 is now being used more to describe technology standards and directions. Given that there are now many references to Web 3.0, I have been surprised that quite a few Wikipedians opposed the existence of the article - which had no shortage of editors or interest. The last version of the deleted article is preserved in my namespace here. The history and information about the evolution of the term (and the Internet) will obviously have to occur outside Wikipedia until there is a change in attitude by those who oppose it. There is little information on this topic in the Internet article which is historical and current, but not forward looking. Peter Campbell 00:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: 1,170,000 Google hits for "Web 3.0" as of today versus about 15 Wikpedians saying "no" Peter Campbell 00:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
But do you know what is the really strange thing? It's that we have on Wikipedia an article about World War IV (I said WW IV, not WW III). As I think WW IV is notable to stay here (it was mentioned by Einstein too), the same should be for Web 3.0. --Angelo 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Google results hit 1,700,000 yesterday but have since declined to a mere 1,570,000. That's almost half a million new indexed page in less than half a month. MOAIASP 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this term is intentionally CENSORED to promote Wikipedia's own corporate/political agenda, aka Wikiasari. The London Times states that "Founder of Wikipedia plans search engine to rival Google" their sponsor Amazon (also a publisher of multiple Web 3.0 articles and books) has put up big money for this next generation search engine that promotes higher relevance in ways reminiscent of many of the published Web 3.0 concepts stemming back to 2005. To get a better idea of what I'm talking about check out the newest of many New York Times articles on Web 3.0 "Entrepreneurs See a Web Guided by Common Sense". Wikia, Inc. is simply trying to plug their free-for-all community model in place of (relatively) unbiased AI as discussed at the Web 3.0 Conference Paris.. meanwhile totally ignoring, REDACTING, and/or outright censoring any view point to the contrary with such unveraciousness that they outright deny the existence of Web 3.0 or any attempts to define it by salting this page. But at this point the powers that be would consider this point WP:CONJECTURE until it's reported by the press verbatim. --MOAIASP 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0 Survives the Wrath of Wikipedians | InformationWeek, NY - Mar 15, 2007 | "Up until last month, Web 3.0's future was in doubt. Wikipedians were divided about the legitimacy of the concept and those skeptical of the term deleted the ..." 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I seem to remember avoiding Wikipedia "shaping" the term being one of the arguments for it's WP:NEO deletion. Artw 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0 as an "Executable" Web Abstraction Layer[edit]

It seems to me that the term is suffering from a low signal to noise ratio on WP, the synonymous association of Semantic Web is obscuring the actual definition. In essence Semantic Web may be a developing segment of Web 3.0 technology but it is not the definitive embodiment.

I'm currently employed at a self proclaimed Web 3.0 / IT start-up based out of Toronto, Canada and the commonly accepted workplace definition is relatively simple when presented in context.

Web 1.0 : the "readable" phase of the world wide web, denoted by static flat data presentation. i.e. HTML, XML, etc.

Web 2.0 : the "writable" phase, denoted by interactive dynamic data and client-server synchronization. i.e. PHP/JS, AJAX, etc.

Web 3.0 : the "executable" phase, denoted by dynamic web applications and composite interactive services. i.e. Online Operating Systems, SaaS, etc.

Web 3.0 may also include integration, such as Google AdSense. Web hosts are wary of people using scripts on their servers. That is why many free web hosts only allow HTML and media. The web may look like a regular windowed program that runs on a server, such as Firefox and XUL. -frank—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't see what all the fuss is about, this progression is logical (not neological) and I'm sure I've seen more than a few note worthy mainstream sources and conference mentions. Much like the early days of Web 2.0, examples of next generation architecture are already apparent in many web services and advanced "AJAX-ified" applications.

-Burns 18:00, 06 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I doubt it's the first mention, this idea/model can be attributed to the Business Week (Oct 2006) article on Web 3.0 and the subsequent online discussion by Andy Carvin in regards to a parallel in Tim Berners-Lee's notion of the read-write web. --MOAIASP 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is another Business article citing definitions for Web 3.0, and stating that it includes but is greater than the semantic web.
Michael Hickins, Can 'Spiritual Computing' Drive Web 3.0?,, July 28, 2006
--Peter Campbell 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This all makes no sense; web3.0 and web2.0 - I still deny their existence as anything more, especially given that this 'read', 'read/write/execute' set of analogies makes no sense - cgi scripts were around over a decade ago, on what seems to be regarded as 'web1.0'. Certainly the webs been advancing, but only with lots of very small evolutionary steps; there's been no landmark changes that justify the ridiculous web2.0 and web3.0 terms.

-webdeveloper 18:00, September 08 (UTC)

Web 3.0... I believe that this page is only being fattened. Hopefully Wiki-Jim will realise how inhumane keeping this article is. And what's with locking the page? It looks terrible right now. Asperger, he'll know. (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Restore and Unblock Web 3.0[edit]

Unblock and Restore What is the processs to get this done? This topic is notable and should be included. I pointed a friend here to get details on Web 3.0 and didn't believe him when he said it was deleted and blocked. This is a a real and notable concept. It is suitably defined in this talk page and the now deleted article. What gives? I find it odd indeed that some group of editors are so against its inclusion. Tim Berners Lee weighs in "People keep asking what Web 3.0 is. I think maybe when you've got an overlay of scalable vector graphics - everything rippling and folding and looking misty - on Web 2.0 and access to a semantic Web integrated across a huge space of data, you'll have access to an unbelievable data resource" [1]. A bit poetic perhaps but it certainly jibes with Web 3.0 as presented here . . . Numskll 21:38, 19 ebruary 2007 (UTC)

Here are recent articles that discuss and define Web 3.0:
Is there an alternative wiki to Wikipedia where this article could live and grow? Peter Campbell 04:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess you can request an account at Citizendium and start the page. But that's like giving up. Petition an admin with a strong case and there's a good chance that the page will be restored. =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm primarily interested in improving Wikipedia in this regard not promoting or explaining web 3.0 outside of the context of wikipedia. Numskll 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You can discuss now the restore of this article on here. --Angelo 01:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You guys can vote there then. Kudos to numskull for starting the deletion review. =D Jumping cheese Cont@ct 03:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Dp any of you folks have an idea of how long the undelete process takes? It seems the great majority of respondants to the discussion think it should be undeleted. Numskll 15:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is still active, and will be until tomorrow. --Angelo 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't necessarily mean to assume the results I was wondering about the process and time-line. Numskll 17:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0 The First Rational Definition I've Seen[edit]

Hi, I've been following this debate. If you haven't read what this person is writing about how to define Web 3.0 I would suggest that you take a look at this article:

Maybe this will help to clarify this debate. You also might want to check technorati -- there are a lot of articles coming out about Web 3.0. Not sure why the wikipedia doesn't have a node about this but it seems really odd to me given the large amount of discussion of this topic in the press and blogosphere.

I don't exactly buy into Spivacks "timeline" but the current entry on Spivacks proposal did point out the interesting correlation between Web "version" and chronological progression. By this measure we're currently at Web 2.7 , or perhaps Web 2.73 if you wanted to narrow it down a little more. This version scheme seems like a relatively agreeable progress estimate that could potentially meet public consensus. The calculation would be +.1 version increment per year at a rate of .083 pre month starting at release version 1.0 in 1990. This allows for concise labeling of the entire organization without the pitfalls of defining and evaluating each and every technology, concept or sub-component. 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My god, this is horrendous. There is simply no need to "checkpoint" the Web at such completely arbitrary points. Noone here has the authority to put a version number on the Web. What's more, there's absolutely NOTHING to be gained from doing so. --Beachy 09:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Restore & Unblock[edit]

As someone who actually contributed to the Web 2.0 article I think it is inappropriate for Web 3.0 to be blocked. Here's why (IMHO):

There are many dimensions of Web Interaction that come into general crystallization (mind-share wise) over time. In the beginning we had the Web of Hypertext Documents (Web 1.0) this dimension of interaction was driven by HTML pages that intermingled Formatting, Logic, and Data. Naturally, as Web usage increased, the obvious need to distill the monolithic pages into constituent parts ushered in the rise of XML. Remember, from XML came content syndication via Web Services (XML-RPC, then SOAP, and then REST variants) which ushered in the blogosphere and all the hoopla associated with the Second Dimension of Web Interaction (Web 2.0).

We are now at another critical juncture where the Web Interaction Dimension focuses on the Data (rather than Presentation or Application Logic / Web Services) aspect of the Web.

Another way of looking at all of this is to use the M-V-C pattern: V - Hypertext Web (Browser Driven Interactive Web) C - Services Web (APIs and Web Services Driven Web) M - Data Web (Open Data Access Driven Web)

Web 2.0 is but one part of an innovation continuum. The same applies to Web 3.0, just another part of the innovation Continuum. To halt at Web 2.0 is bad and futile. Ironically, it also feeds into the very element that those who resist Web 3.0 are trying to fight against (hype over substance).

Web 2.0, which is still a partial definition at best re. the Wikipedia document, cannot exist while Web 3.0 is rejected.

Finally, Web 3.0 is critical piece of the Semantic Web technology stack. But do not confuse this with the Semantic Web as whole. I tend to refer to this as Layer 1 of the Semantic Web.

What happens next? I would like to urge a vote on this matter sooner rather than later.

Kingsley_Idehen 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC) .

You can discuss restoring the article here. Have your say --Peter Campbell 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
can we still see the discussion. i want to copy the various sources here so that we can use them to improve the article?Numskll 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Do people use the term Web 3.0? Then it deserves a Wikipedia page[edit]

To me it seems ludicrous to maintain a Web 2.0 entry, but no Web 3.0. It's quite obvious (to me) that people are using the term Web 3.0 as the the next generation of web technologies, including but perhaps not limited to Semantic Web tech. I'm not going to try and define it myself, Spivack and others are much more apt for that.

I agree the above point. Since Web 3.0 is a future related issue, I am wonder how we can define it as an encycropedia term such as Wikipedia? if it is yes (I guess it is yes), what is the basic rule to define the appropriate topic in Wikipedia?JSK (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to see many 'Web technologies' as a holistic system, and even harder to define it and give it versioning numbers. But people are using the term and that by itself should justify a Wikipedia entry. At least we would then have a page where it says

"Web 3.0 is hard to define because people are referring to the integration of various web-related technologies, however ...."

If anything, a Wikipedia page can help define it as best as possible. I strongly urge the unblocking of the page. ---hthth 01:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You can discuss restoring the article here. Have your say --Peter Campbell 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevant to just a few people who coined the term[edit]

Web 3.0, is just like it's predecessor, a totally pointless term which means nothing, says nothing, and recycles old ideas like ontologies, meta information in non-meta pages and other semantic concepts that have been around for a decade in theoretical situations like multi agent systems. Certain companies coined the term so that they can claim to be "web 3.0" leaders and therefore join the next bandwagon which has resulted in the total lack of innovation and stupidity on the web today. Anyone and their dog is making a web 2.0 site with tags and other techniques that the average person doesn't understand. It's about the average person - they don't even get web 2.0, so what is 3.0 supposed to mean? Oh and by the way, what exactly happened to the features of web 2.4, 2.7. 2.9, etc.?! When you think of it in this light, you realise how totally ridiculous this notion of versioning actually is. It's a superficial "versioning" system invented by developers (the pioneers like FlickR did NOT coin web 2.0) - which people who don't make websites are baffled about. The world cannot grow into a more pointless, geek-led band of nonsense. The future of the internet is human and real (social networks are just the beginning), and web 3.0 is meaningless, with no place in the future. It is nothing less than an elaborate kind of microformat on a page. Bury this idea forever. Web X.Y is tired, sick and just dull. 09:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

but how do you really feel? none the less the concept is notable if worthy of your scorn. Numskll 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The concept is NOT AT ALL notable. Yes, the Web is lovely, and there are lots of great new XML flavours and different trendy web design techniques these days. That does NOT mean we need to arbitrarily slap some version number on it. If proponents of "Web 2.0," "Web 3.0" etc understood software development you would feel very dismayed at how we're abusing the concept of versioning here --Beachy 09:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. Web X.X is NOT part of a FORMAL versioning system as is seen in a TYPICAL software development cycle and the term was COINED to play off familar versioning. So what? It is STILL getting circulated. It's meaning is FIRMING up and people in the industry are using it AND working towards it.[2] When I sprinkled words in ALL CAPS into this reply does it seem more compelling to you? The web is sofware AND people Numskll 20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Like it or Not The Term is Here To Stay -- And Getting More Widely Used -- That's a Simple Fact[edit]

Regardless of the above writer's obvious personal issues with the term, Web 3.0 is a huge term in the media and is being widely used in the web industry as well. Just because YOU don't like it and wouldn't use it, doesn't mean it has no value or usage for other people. The point of the Wikipedia is to reflect consensus reality, not just YOURS. Is this an encyclopedia or not? For example, you may not agree with the "Flat Earth" hypothesis, but lo and behold, it it has a node in the pedia. You may not agree with the idea of Web 2.0, but it also has a node in the pedia. If you want to eliminate ALL concepts you don't agree with, start your own encyclopedia -- or at least be consistent and remove all terms that are not *perfectly* defined from the wikipedia (of which there are at least hundreds of thousands of nodes...). What bothers me about this is not your opinion about the terminology but rather the fact that it is subjective and has no place in an encyclopedia. The FACTS speak for themselves. The FACTS are that the term is widely used. That's all that matters. Give it a node that says as much and points to various definitions. It can even cite dissent. The point is to document the culture. Censorship also documents the culture of course but only YOUR personal biased view of culture. That's not what the Wikipedia is for though.

A "huge term?" What "media" and "web industry" are you talking about? Or are you just cracking a joke here? These neologisms (WP:NEO violations) are not encyclopaedic. They should be removed from wikipedia --Beachy 09:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that these buzzwords tend to come and go...they are chiefly opportunities to try to create a bandwagon for the sake of making money. For example, tomorrow I devise "Web 8.0" and write a book about the term, define it, etc. and make the talk show circuit to promote it. I hold conferences, etc. Then I trademark the term (i.e. O'Reilly and 2.0, etc.) and all the other nonsense. They're money-making endeavors, and that deserves equal mention. VincentValentine29 15:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite to address issues raised in talk[edit]

Apparently there is enough material out there now that the article passes WP:NEO. I'm somewhat skeptical of that, but if it is then the article should be rewritten to reflect that. As the article stands right now it's a deletion candidate. Artw 19:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article just passed the undelete review a couple of hours ago. You should allow a reasonable time to improve it based upon that consensus. Nominate it for deletion if you like, but my sense is that it will not be subject to deletion for the same reasons it was undeleted. However it is your call . . .Numskll 20:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Artw, I agree with Nubskll. If the article is nominated for deletion one day after it is restored I think this would be very poor form and quite inappropriate. I think the focus should be on collaboration and getting the content right (encyclopaedic) rather than just deleting articles that are widely supported - as evidenced by the restoration debate. The choice is of course yours --Peter Campbell 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear I'm not really intending noming the article any time soon, just pointing out that as it stands it could very well be nominated. Let's see if this support actuyally translates into writing a decent article. Artw 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that the page is restored, all the arguments that were used to get it undeleted should be incorporated into the page. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 10:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added some of the external links mentioned in the discussion. Some or all of these can be used to reference further material added. Peter Campbell 12:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0 Article Outline[edit]

Now that we have an opportunity to create a Web 3.0 article, let's please take the opportunity to build a model document. Here is a simple outline:

1. What is Web 3.0?

2. Origins of Term (there are critical Blogosphere items re. this matter, let's do proper research so that we don't fall foul of jingoism and nepotism (a major problem I encountered when working on the Web 2.0 article).

3. Why is it Important? The most important part of this article.

4. How Does it relate to Web 2.0 and the original Hypertext Web (Web 1.0)

5. How does one know they have entered this realm (with examples and not fluffy ambiguity, please!) Kingsley_Idehen 17:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I would add:
6. Differences between Web 3.0 and Semantic web
7. A roadmap section (could incorporate points 4 and 6)

--Peter Campbell 22:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that any meaningful discussion of Web 2.0, 3.0, etc. would, by default, include some degree of criticism and reflection upon other widespread notions of the irrelevance, ambiguity, etc. of the term, as well as pointing out, clearly, how there is no formal versioning system for the internet. Let's all assume good faith and attempt to maintain NPOV. VincentValentine29 15:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Topics to Cover[edit]

The Data-Web is an important first step in the Web 3.0 timeline. This should be covered in some depth in this article. It may also qualify for it's own node. As such the Web 3.0 page could function as a landing page that discusses a set of interwoven trends. RDF, SPARQL and probably microformats should be detailed here. In addition perhaps other related technologies should be discussed.

OWL and ontologies needs to be described. In addition, a reference to the subject of publishing axioms, using SWRL or other rules languages, probably merits a mention.

There should probably be a note about natural language search and/vs. semantic search -- another major topic and trend in this area.

Citations need to be provided, and quotes need to be relevant[edit]

The Tim Berners-Lee quote from the New York Time that mentioned Web 3.0 has been removed and replaced by a very lengthy quote that discusses Semantic web at length but doesn't mention Web 3.0. Why? The original quote is relevant so it should be replaced. The Semantic web content belongs to its specific article, not this one.

Also, new content is being added which is speculative and unsourced. Could editors please ensure all content is sourced or the article will slip towards a meaningless collection of rants and speculation. Sounds a bit tough, but several have worked hard to get this article reinstated. It would be a pity to see it turn to custard. Peter Campbell 22:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Berners-Lee quote on Semantic Web[edit]

I have removed the content below for the article as I think it better placed in the Semantic web article rather than this one.

Tim Berners-Lee stated[1]:

Opinions please . . .

The page can still mention something about it I guess. I frankly don't know. =( Jumping cheese Cont@ct 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The page is about the Web 3.0, the Web as a bona fide Database is the crux of the matter here. TimBL's testimony excerpt highlights the very elements of this article: Data Access and Data Integration. Of course we could narrow down the paragraph count, but this item is far more relevant than the current quote which provides no clarity to Web 3.0 (imho). Kingsley_Idehen 14:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The data access and integration (web database) definition is one of several, and is not necessarily the primary one. Quotes and references that don't specifically mention Web 3.0 are open to speculation, interpetation and opinions about the relationship to Web 3.0, none of which is encyclopaedic content Peter Campbell 01:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

References (specific to this talk-page discussion)[edit]

  1. ^ Daniel J. Weitzner (CSAIL) (2007-03-01). "Future of the Web". estimony before Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. Retrieved 2006-05-24. line feed character in |work= at position 66 (help)CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nigelj (talkcontribs) 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Create Web 3.0 category[edit]

Category:Web 2.0 is extensively used. I have added it to the Web 3.0 article. I think Category:Web 3.0 should be recreated, intially for this article, but also for related technologies. Any objections? --Peter Campbell 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit pre-emptive, seeing as theres no consensus over what those technologies actually are. Artw 00:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think so either. Just let's wait for a while before doing that move, we need the Web 3.0 technologies to be well-defined first. --Angelo 02:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's hold off on this for now, given the state of flux. Peter Campbell 04:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd vote for recreation as it would promote clustering of related concepts. On the other hand, the previous category deletion debates and shared views of the right support Artw's "preemptive" statement. Given that the current motion is to postpone category creation until there is a consensus of definition, could it be clarified whether the objective is an internal wiki consensus (in relation to the article) or a general external consensus (i.e. search result, published media, etc)? 01:38, 9 March 2007 (EST)
I'd say a wiki-concensus that a general external consensus exists would be required. Artw 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

International Consortium for Web 3.0[edit]

I'm removing the external link added by on 15:32, 5 March because the site is not related to the topic other than as a 'mislabeled' namesake. The site implies some type of unsubstantiated authority and is misleading at best.

"BHTMLWT, or Basically Hyper Text Mark-up Language Without Tags is the official mark-up language of Web 3.0. "

I can't tell whether the site is a satire, intentional misinformation or if the author actually believes their own claims, although a review of the limited content on the site and common sense leads me to believe something is basically amiss. 02:06, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Here's another gem from the "Chairman of the ICW3":

"The Web 3.0 standard strives to make the Internet text only and non-interactive - the way it should be. The result is faster Internet access for all."

You got to admit that's funny stuff.. .txt for all! (Apologies in advanced for wasting valuable discussion space.) 02:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

It looks suspect to me too. I think the article is better off without the link. Peter Campbell 07:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Web 4.0[edit]

Web 4.0 - "a dynamic, mutating mashup of time and dimensions both web-based and otherwise, creating an eternally minable data model of the world past, present and future. Evolving beyond the cognitive ability of mankind into an uncontrollable spasmic orgy of over-communication " -- that definition is MINE, baby! Be sure to quote me on the upcoming Web 4.0 article. Blog about it! Spread the word! A new era is coming! Web 3.0 is dead! --Beachy 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

haha... "Web 3.0 will be 10 megabits of bandwidth all the time"... so what's going on in South Korea? Web 4.0? Web 5.0? MY GOD, why does it seem that the fat cats up there seem to be lower on the "clue" scale than everyone I know, and I (unfortunately) don't know any such big bosses :/ -- sigs

Web 5.0[edit]

Web 4.0? Phooey! I'm holding out for Web 5.0, and I refuse to get involved in all this outdated Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 stuff until it's ready for me. Gear up for it now! I have my Spandex leotard and the goggles already. --Nigelj 19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be Web Pentium no doubt. | O'Reilly Radar > The Future of Web 2.0 | 17:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

CALO link[edit]

I removed this link from the article as it contains no reference to Web 3.0: :Cognitive Agent that Learns and Organizes (CALO), SRI & DARPA --Peter Campbell 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Spivack vs. WP:Verify[edit]

The following content (out of context) has just been removed by User:Beachy in 3 edits:

In mid 2006, Web 3.0 was linked to the Semantic web and AI, in another blog article which stated that human activity in Wikipedia could result in the realization of the Semantic web model that could surpass Google as an "intelligent answer machine" using a large set of ontologies.<ref name=Fawzi1>Marc Fawzi [ Wikipedia 3.0: The End of Google?],''Evolvingtrends Blog'', June 26, 2006</ref>

The term Web 3.0 became a subject of increased interest and debate from late 2006 extending into 2007.

Nova Spivack has proposed that a more objective way to define Web 3.0 might be as "the third decade of the Web, from 2010 to 2020". Spivack suggests that Web 2.0 has largely been focused on front-end user-interface improvements such as AJAX, while Web 3.0 will shift the focus back to the backend - the underlying technologies of the Web, enabled by Semantic Web technologies. In Spivack's view, Web 3.0 will begin by transforming the Web into a database -- what some call the Data-Web using RDF and SPARQL. The next step after that will be the addition of richer semantics to the Data-Web, using OWL ontologies. This process will continue from the present day through the next decade. By 2020, Spivack predicts the Semantic Web will be globally integrated into the Web, opening the door for the fourth decade of the Web, Web 4.0 (the years 2020 to 2030), in which the focus will shift back to the front-end again, with a new generation of more intelligent applications and services that interact with users, assist them, and help them to use the Web more productively.<ref>Nova Spivack [ How the WebOS Evolves?], February 09, 2007</ref><ref>Nova Spivack [ A Definition and Timeline of Web 3.0], ''Blog'', February 09, 2007</ref>

<ref>Nova Spivack [ The Third-Generation Web is Coming], '''', December 17, 2006</ref>

I think that this content is valid as citations were provided, and the blog references remain. Several other blog postings remain. I think these preemptive edits have comprised the content and integrity of the article. Could other editors please indicate whether they support or oppose this content being included? I have reverted the edits pending the outcome of this discussion so that editors can review the context. Peter Campbell 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for not simply reverting my edits. I'm not going to through the wikipedia rulebook around here but I just want to remind you all that non-affiliated personal blogs do not infer authority to content in wikipedia. The "editorial" above is unsubstantiated and whilst interesting, is not encylopaedic content. --Beachy 12:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hold on a minute, you DID revert the edits.. Right. Let's get to the crux of this argument before we waste too much time. Take a look at WP:VERIFY: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." See also WP:EL Links to be avoided #11: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." I think that's a pretty black-and-white wikipedia policy. --Beachy 12:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this content as per wikipedia policy. --Beachy 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to prefer an edit war rather than waiting for the outcome of community discussion on this. Please review WP:CIVIL and take this into account prior to further preemptive removal of content, and with respect to some of your recent contributions to this article talk page. Also note that you are making it more difficult for editors to assess the content in question. Peter Campbell 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for an edit war on this. At present the content is clearly non-encyclopaedic because it fails both WP:EL and WP:VERIFY. Please consult both these pages and hopefully you will understand why the content has to go. Oh, and there's no need to take the edit personally. We're all working to make the best possible wikipedia. --Beachy 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Spivak is a notable memetics expert and has been featured in the press and published media regarding memes, semantics and the semantic web for several years. I think the chunky paragraph above is a little heavy to digest based soley on wording. The Spivak info presented in the unsorted list in the following section has a better flow. The prior version detracted from the clarity of the roadmap section and would be better off in the debate section. ROT26 Decoder Ring 12:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If Spivak is notable and has been featured in the press, then we should cite what he has said on record, rather than attributing content to what he's written in his personal blog. --Beachy 12:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This link that you removed <ref>Nova Spivack [ The Third-Generation Web is Coming], '''', December 17, 2006</ref> is to a journal website, not a blog, so it definately meets the required criteria. I will reinstate it with the appropriate text. Peter Campbell 12:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fully agree with your recent set of edits .. no warfare from me! --Beachy 14:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Spivack saw Beachy coming, following references recently posted on MindingThePlanet.Net
Coming Soon: The Semantic Web. By Sebastian Rupley. PC Magazine - December 2006
The Third Wave. By Mark Henricks. Entrepreneur Magazine - April 2007
ROT26 Decoder Ring 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the major issue would be Spivak's flagrant protologisms (WP:NEO). Predictions of technology that may or may not exist several decades from now are out of place and the use of futurstic dates to "bring something into context" within this article should be used with extreme caution given the guidelines. ROT26 Decoder Ring 09:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should be reinstated with reference to the article. I'm not sure there is really that much of a distinction between online publications and weblogs anymore, therefore I think Spivack's blog is valid as a source. But anyway, the version of the article is certainly legitimate enough. Spivack's definition of Web 3.0 as the third decade of the Web is an important distinction, and should be noted, considering he actually helped to define the term in the first place and is among the most cited authorities on it in the press currently.
So when my blog entry is referred to in a journal I can make up "Web 4.0" and publish my ramblings on wikipedia? I haven't come up with a definition of "Web 4.0" yet but hell, I can bullshit like the best of them! :-) --Beachy 08:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Karl Marx and Web 3.0[edit]

Content Origin and Web Version

  • Web 1.0 = sites supply their own content = site profits
  • Web 2.0 = users supply content = alienation / exploitation = site profits
  • Web 3.0 = users supply content = profit sharing = mutualism / symbiosis
    • To me, web 3.0 is new web which consists of current web concept (1.0, 2.0 and any known concept) + something we cannot predict what exactly. So, better representation is beyond web (or beyond web 2.0) as we usually call for beyond 3G in mobile communication research. We are not sure something which is not yet happened so that we call it as not too clear name in order to give more freedom to development. For example, if something really happens which can replace web in a 5 or 10 year, is it really appropriate to call that as web 3.0 (just changing its version number). It'll be better to name differently. For example mobile web which is web but totally different of it in terms of its main advantage. Mobile web provides far convenient than conventional Internet (wire-line) based web. Is mobile web (or mobile web 2.0, any) appropriate to be regarded as web 3.0? Or, something far different to (conventional) web? JSK 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not part of the Web 3.0 debate, but when does money become a more democratically controlled phenomenon in the web? When do hits, diggs, +5's, thumbs ups (and thumbs downs) turn into actual dollars being exchanged? --Kevathens (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is youtube's profit sharing plan a characteristic of Web 2.0 or Web 3.0?

I'm just wondering if I can label my online art community as web 3.0 now that our members can display google adsense on their pages and receive 100% of their ad revenue. Epiphyte 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointy-Haired Boss Buzzwords[edit]

Oh God, since when did PHBB's become "encyclopedic"?

Hey, Web 2.0 is all about talking about Web 3.0, 4.0 and onward, mainly using PHBB's. Welcome to the New Internet 2.0+ beta

Web evolution and Model View Controller (MVC) paradigm[edit]

  • Web 1.0: Only the View is available, the Model is completely missing. The computer can't interpret anything.
  • Web 2.0: APIs are coming, Controllers give partial accesses to the Model. The computer starts to enjoy.
  • Web 3.0: The Model is largely opened, we are finally able to read and write the World Wide Database. The computer can't wait!

Manuel Vila 08:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikia search engine content[edit]

The following text has now been removed at least twice, this being the last time. I favour retaining it.

In early 2007, the announcement of an open source search engine by Wikia in competition with Google and Yahoo has created speculation that improved search technologies will be a key feature and battleground of the World Wide Web. Wikia could provide a search engine that lets users edit and fine-tune its results.[1]

Note that the original reference is no longer avaible, but this one is.

Can other editors please indicate below whether they support or oppose this? Peter Campbell 10:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Jonathan Thaw, Wikia plans editable Web search engine, Bloomberg News, March 10, 2007
  • Support: The evolution of search capabilities will be a major factor relevant to Web 3.0 Peter Campbell 10:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You can support or oppose all that you want, but without a source clearly tying this to web 3.0 it's not getting in. —Ruud 14:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You are not the sole arbiter of content for this article. I suggest you think about a more collaborative approach rather than just reverting without discussion. Let's hear from some others Peter Campbell 04:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:V and related policies. The burden of evidence is placed on those wishing to retain a statement. And as even consensus cannot overide our core policies this poll is pointless. —Ruud 14:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "has created speculation" is pretty good indication of how this is not valid. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Given that it's hard enough to get a definition of Web 3.0 in the first place, what's the point of trying to speculate? In addition, it needs more verification. VincentValentine29 14:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

State of the article[edit]

Since this article was recreated a few months ago, it seems like no particular steps forwards were made in terms of quality. The article lacks severely of sources and citations, and the subject looks pretty unclear even to a computer scientist who works daily with web-associated algorithms and techniques such as me. The article is full of rumours, opinions and free-minded thoughts, but lacks of facts, so I would suggest you all to review it through an appropriate discussion in order to give an answer to the main question, i.e., what is Web 3.0 expected to be? If you need some help you can contact me. --Angelo 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I second Angelo's opinion. Moreover, we haven't seen Web 3.0 technology yet. Who knows there will no more web but something else will replace it since web 3.0 is the definition of the next paradigm web. Why don't we let this page as Beyond web and let web 3.0 be a candidate terminology of Beyond web. No parents registers their child's name to the government before his or her born. JSK 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider[edit]

I am the author of the first book on web design ("Creating Killer Web Sites," MacMillan, 1995), and the author of a bestselling business book ("Futurize Your Enterprise," Wiley, 1999). Much of my last book was about the Semantic Web, XML, and open-standards for metadata. I have a tech blog where I write about the Semantic Web, and I hope people here will consider linking to it. It's my own definition of Web 3.0. It doesn't really matter what anyone calls it, the fundamentals of open metadata standards, web-as-database, original documents only (links, not copies), and what I call Digital Birth Certificates all will combine to bring about the Semantic Web. I hope my research, writing, and activities in this area will help inspire people to investigate the power and the promise of what comes next.

My blog is at

David Siegel

To me it's potentially interesting, however I'd like to have a little more consensus before including this link (btw I believe there are too many unrelated and unnecessary external links in the article as it is now). --Angelo 00:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I doubt including anyone's personal definition of Web 3.0 adds any encyclopedic value, unless you happen to be Tim Berners-Lee. —Ruud 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


I think it might be appropriate to add a feature about AskWiki to this article. AskWiki was just launched in partnership with Wikimedia and uses natural language processing to answer questions directed at Wikipedia content. AskWiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchmaven (talkcontribs) 18:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree about its inclusion only in case you're able to show me reliable sources linking the AskWiki project to Web 3.0. If you fail this, I would not favour your proposal, because this is not the Semantic web article. --Angelo 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0 definitions without consensus[edit]

I believe that two of the definitions of web3.0 are stated with a single quote and have no consensus in the real world.

A: Web 1.0 was dial-up, 50K average bandwidth, Web 2.0 is an average 1 megabit of bandwidth and Web 3.0 will be 10 megabits of bandwidth all the time, which will be the full video Web, and that will feel like Web 3.0.

B: Another possible path for Web 3.0 is towards the 3 dimensional vision championed by the Web3D Consortium. This would involve the Web transforming into a series of 3D spaces, taking the concept realised by Second Life further.[10] This could open up new ways to connect and collaborate using 3D shared spaces.[11]

Personally, I believe Semantic Web is the commonplace definition of Web 3.0. However, I'm wiling to read about any definition that has reached some consensus (neither of which these have). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Full Decent (talkcontribs) 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So clearly a neologism that it hurts[edit]

FROM WP:NEO (which I assuming most of the proponents of this article haven't read, or at least haven't understood):

"The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people." (emphasis mine)

This so precisely and succinctly sums up the current situation with the term Web 3.0 that I want to gouge my own eyes out at the site of this article. If/when it becomes notable and if/when it becomes well defined, THEN let's have an article on it. Until then, maybe a redirect to Web 2.0, which could maybe include a paragraph on Web 3.0, would suffice.

And no, it is clearly not notable. I've been a web developer by profession of 5 years only came across this term for the first time today, which caused me to look it up here. I have just been talking to other developers that I know and they have not heard of the term either (though one does satirically apply it to his own work, as in, "Web 2.0 is so 2006, I'm up to Web 3.0 now!"). Admittedly a small sample size, but the fact that the very people who would supposedly implement this thing haven't heard of it very strongly that it a load of marketing gobbledygook.

Or let's stub in articles for all Web versions up to 10 just to be on the safe side. I'm sure we can find a couple of wishy washy Technorati articles as verification.

Straussian (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has been deleted several times pretty much for the reasons you gave, then salted, then restored after it went through deletion review, partially on the insistance that Web 3.0 did have some kind of meaning and that a decent article could be made of it. Some time has passed now, and the articvle is as unfocused as ever, so we may want to send it to afd again. Artw (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I must say you're all right. I still think the subject is definitely notable, but the article's current quality is definitely poor. It must be improved as soon as possible if we all care about it, otherwise an AFD would appear to be the most logical consequence. --Angelo (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree,believe it is impossible to write a decent encyclopedic article about this subject at the time. A dictionary entry at Wiktionary would be much more appropriate. —Ruud 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it. Wiktionary is a vocabulary, and Web 3.0 is definitely not a vocabulary term. I would instead consider to completely rewrite the article, saying the current usage of the "Web 3.0" term, and where it all comes from. --Angelo (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wiktionary does have an entry on wikt:Web 2.0, though. A rewrite has been proposed several times already, I believe this is not going to happen as the term Web 3.0 currently doesn't have an consistent usage of accepted meaning. The best this article could hope to become is collection of borderline notable quotes by what some individual people believe the term should mean. —Ruud 22:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Not having an accepted meaning actually is a fact, and this might be explained in the article itself. Maybe we cannot write anything about Web 3.0, but we can write something about the usage of the Web 3.0 term. That's merely my idea, of course. --Angelo (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
But isn't writing about the usage of a term (versus an article on that topic) exactly the distinction between an encyclopaedic article and a dictionary entry? —Ruud 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. See World War III for an example of what I'm trying to say. --Angelo (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be the "Historical close calls" sections that makes this article useful. Those are some very concrete historical events though, while in this article we could only list some speculations of what Web 3.0 might perhaps be. —Ruud 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Not just them, as it has even a child article such as World War III in popular culture. And, believe me or not, but I am a computer scientist and I know for good Web 3.0 is actually widely used to refer to what's gonna happen next in the Web world, so an article is simply necessary. In addition the subject was proved to be notable in the deletion review process, and all the sources around. And messed-up articles about notable subjects should be rewritten, not deleted. --Angelo (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote intro[edit]

Like many others, I feel like this article is bad shape. However, I think it should be improved rather than deleted. When I was first looking for information about the term Web 3.0, I did find it somewhat useful.

I've rewritten the intro, removed the reference to Jeffrey Zeldman's blog (which was certainly not the first usage of the term), and renamed the history section. Some might question the value of having a section of quotes, but I find that this section is the most clear and useful part of the article so far.

What do you guys think? --Jonovision (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A massive rewrite is necessary for the "Web 3.0 debates" paragraph. I also think the whole "See also" and "External links" sections should be removed, because there's no verifiable link between Web 3.0 and the listed technologies. --Angelo (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

3D? Oh pleeez![edit]

I seriously doubt that 3D (in the conventional sense) is even a player in this contest of paradigms and technologies. While Second Life is popular as a game (as far as I know, its most prevalent use is as a medium of sexual role-play), the WWW is moving toward a more and more semantic model, which is the total opposite of the spatial model that conventional "virtual realities" promote. Why should I bother moving around in a space finding the stuff I want, when I can just state what I want and get it right away? Think about this: I live in Boomtown, and I want to check out the train schedule for tomorrow, as I want to visit my grandmother in Poofville. I log on, and...

version one: I walk out into the central hub of my virtual community, and check the location of the Happy Trails Railroad Company website. I "beam" myself to the site, take in the impressive scenery of antique railroad equipment, and walk into the building. To create a realistic feel, the schedules are posted on the wall. Walking through the room, I find the one I need and look at it.

version two: Go to my favorite semantic search engine, and enter "train schedule from boomtown to poofville tomorrow". I press enter, and poof, there's the schedule right on my screen.

I'd go with the second one. 3D itself has its merits as a way of improving windowed user interfaces, but I'm sure the virtual world metaphor is basically a toy, and it will stay a toy, save for a few highly specialised scenarios, like pilot training and such... Wilderns (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pretending not to be an Internet expert (despite my MSc degree in Computer Science and my current job as a Web developer), so I'd like you to give me some sources that confirm what you're saying, in compliance with our current policies and guidelines. --Angelo (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
While Wilderns information is original research and would not fit with Wikipedia's policies or guidelines (and therefore not fit for the article), there's truth in what he's saying. He's just stating the obvious in a little rant, not telling anyone to put this in the article. Just for the sake of this discussion, can you really argue with him? Any time I've gone on SL all I've been able to find is random houses and sex clubs, as well as a bunch of oddly placed advertisements. As for the internet in 3D, I'm not too sure what they mean. There are already 3D graphical applications for interaction, but do they mean a virtual reality sort of thing, or what? In any case, just give me what I need to know, thank you very much, and save the 3D interaction for gaming and other applications. Sandwiches99 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Time for reorganization[edit]

Hi all, I think it's time to reorganize and rewrite this article. I propose to structure it in a way somewhat similar than Web 2.0:

  1. Introduction
  2. Proposed definitions
  3. Characteristics
  4. Technologies
  5. Criticisms (if any)
  6. See also
  7. References

And no "External links", since it might become a place for potential WP:EL and WP:SPAM pushers. Thoughts? --Angelo (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

When I first read this article a few months ago, I found the quotes section at the top to be the most useful. It nicely demonstrates that "Web 3.0" doesn't necessarily exist, but that the term is used to speculate on possible future developments. I'd like to keep that section, in some form or another.

On the other hand, the rest of the article tends to talk about "Web 3.0" as if its birth is inevitable. I've thought of editing those parts, but they're in such poor shape that I was afraid to even start.

Right now those sections are organized mostly by the source - each section summarized one or two referenced articles. Perhaps we should try to group sections by technology. Most of the current article could probably fit into the following technology categories:

  • Semantic Web (Queryable XML, intelligent agents, etc)
  • Graphics (3D, SVG, etc.)
  • New models of software (viral applications, user contributed code, etc.)

What do you think? --Jonovision (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's definitely useless to introduce existing technologies which already have their own article. A mention in a "Technologies" section is probably enough. --Angelo (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I vote to split the article. At present, few know what "Web 3.0" is, and they don't agree on it. So I see this article as being agnostic over what it means, and being a lightweight listing of the various interpretations of the term, together with the people advocating each of those views. Then the content specific to each interpretation is pushed down into separate articles beneath this, with appropriate naming. WP:NPOV, naturally. This overall content is already written here (and is pretty good), so the main work is to strip the detail and move it into the new subs. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Web 3.0 Search Engine Optimization[edit]

Content from a deleted article, that may be useful here:

Web 3.0 Search engine optimization (SEO) is a process of improving the volume of traffic to a web site based on human input and “future webstandards.

Web 3.0 SEO will be based on standardized formats which specify concepts used in web sites and describe web sites’ structure and content. SEO formats will be used by web crawlers to get more accurate data.
Nowadays a few organizations have been already engaged in Web 3.0 search technology standards development process, such as W3C that defined Semantic web concepts with RDF/OWL specifications, OMFICA which developed Internet Content Description Language (ICDL) oriented to Web 3.0 SEO approaches.

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 Search Engine Optimization - Nabla (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not notable[edit]

I think that the subject is not notable, it just seems to me a modern renaming of the already ill-defined term "Web 2.0", but possibly even worse since it's largely speculative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


You've just anonymously (or at least not overtly) posted a link to your own blog content, which is itself a partial quote from this page, out of its cited context. The blog link adds nothing. The whole "web 3.0" notion is an obvious neologism where this article attempts to catalogue some emerging theories about which way it might be defined. The notion you've (tagged here might be bizarre, but it is (AIUI) a genuinely citable opinion from some notable external commentator. So what's the "dubious" issue? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that these sentences are not cited, they're not attributed, and they're not true. Anthony (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Web 1.0 was a "read-only" web, with content being produced by and large by the organizations backing any given site
    • According to whom? Not cited, not attributed, and not true.
  • Web 2.0 was an extension into the "read-write" web that engaged users in an active role
    • Would be nice if it were better attributed, but I don't have a problem with that part.
  • Web 3.0 could extend this one step further by allowing people to modify the site or resource itself.
    • I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. It's certainly not an NPOV statement. Not cited, not attributed, and may or may not be true.
  • Wikipedia is an example of a Web 3.0 technology.
    • Not cited, not attributed, not true, silly, and navel-gazing.

Anthony (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the original addition of the text: I'll ask User:Tadman to join us. Seems clear this isn't "a genuinely citable opinion from some notable external commentator", though. Anthony (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, now that I see the original heading, Web 3.0 as an "Executable" Web Abstraction Layer, at least now I understand the analogy. Read/Write/Execute are the three basic file system permissions. It'd be a cute analogy if it fit with the facts, but it doesn't, so it certainly should be cited and attributed to a reliable source. And it should be phrased better as well - "with content being produced by and large by the organizations backing any given site" isn't a good description of "read-only". Google searching "read write execute web 3.0", it does seem to be a concept which is worthy of note. I'm going to take a shot at cleaning it up a bit. Anthony (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations Needed[edit]

The content I added to this page was a reworking of some earlier effort to pin down the definition, but is still lacking suitable citations. Hopefully someone like Anthony (talk) can help in this regard. As the definition of Web 2.0, in practical terms, is still somewhat wobbly and subjective, I'm not sure this page will have similar trouble.

When I was talking about "executable", I was speaking in terms of early efforts such as the Facebook API for building applications that live within the Facebook platform, but there are better examples such as the Google App Engine which is much more generic, being more in line with a pure web-based development platform.

  • Web 1.0 allows people to browse arbitrary pages, user contributed views
  • Web 2.0 allows people to modify these pages, user contributed content
  • Web 3.0 allows people to reinvent these pages, user contributed code

Tadman (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's no good 'talking about it' - you have to WP:CITE reliable sources who have been published saying it. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or discussion forum. --Nigelj (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Talking about it has helped, though. I now at least understand the concept, and I even found a few sources for it. The earliest source I can find is from someone named Andy Carvin [3], who seems to be Andy Carvin, "National Public Radio's senior product manager for online communities". I'd say he constitutes a source worthy of citing, so long as his ideas are attributed. The problem now is, I don't buy it. I quote a probably unreliable source when I say "Web 2.0 was the creation of more “Read Write” web sites, so some people are predicting that Web 3.0 will be “Read Write Execute”. To me that sounds silly - you can’t simpily add ‘execute’ onto the end and expect the internet to follow file permission settings." [4] I'm fairly bored by this (dictionary definition) article at this point, though I think it could probably be cleaned up and made into a pretty good article on speculation about the future of the web. I intend to import it into my own wiki and transform it into such an article. Anthony (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


I Rursus Siderespector, the goblin masquerading as human, hereby apologize:

  1. I never created the term Web 3.0,
  2. I'll never ever use the term to allege that it has some meaning, nor imply that I can create Web 3.0, nor wish to see Web 3.0,
  3. Web 3.0 is probably very very evil, but aside from that,
  4. Web 3.0 have never been seen, nor does it exist.

If anyone out there, get a glimpse of Web 3.0, run ... fast ... in the opposite direction!! Said: Rursus () 13:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Strategic comma is needed[edit]

In this sentence, would a comma precede or follow the word "simultaneously"? I think it should follow the word:

"Nova Spivack defines Web 3.0 as the third decade of the Web (2010–2020) during which he suggests several major complementary technology trends will reach new levels of maturity simultaneously, including:..." (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one for Web 3.0[edit]

Web 3.0 = Web 2.0 + OpenSimulator (

With OpenSimulator the Web 3.0 will get its standard and its apache. As an universal 3D VR application server this will become for sure the next revolutionary technology.

Everything else is just plain Web 4.0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


I suggest include information about ResearchGATE.

Please correct: Jerry Yang is no longer Chief of Yahoo[edit]

Please correct the statement in this article that Jerry Yang would be Chief of Yahoo. The correct title would be now "former CEO" (in Quotations section).

Thank you. (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Web 3.0 Emerging : Recent Article[edit]

I have come across an article on Web 3.0. It's a nice 3-page PDF. You can also read the article here : or here --NiluKush (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

only a chucklehead would say delete[edit]

its a neologism so there should be a reference. if you believe this one to be deficient then improve it. otherwise dont read it. in either case shut up. please — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Telling people to shut up isn't an effective debate tool. Further, given that you've specifically stated it's a neologism, I'll direct you to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms (especially the section Articles on neologisms). You've defeated your own argument. Mindmatrix 19:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect and split[edit]

A consensus was met on the talk page of Web 2.0 and I got a message asking me to carry out the move. However, this page is fully protected. This seems silly. Please unprotect this page so that the Web 3.0 section of the Web 2.0 article can be split from said article to this page. Supuhstar * § 21:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I just checked the relevant process. You need to ask the protecting admin first (User:Ruud Koot in this case). I've left him a message pointing here. Otherwise, you can also make a request at WP:RFUP. Tra (Talk) 23:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The article Web 3.0 has been deleted at Articles for deletion several times (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (second nomination)) and is currently "salted". Obviously, consensus can change and I'll be happy to unprotect this article if it does, but currently I'm not seeing anything resembling a strong consensus to split off the section again. I recommend you start a Request for comments at Talk:Web 2.0. My personal opinion on this matter would be that the section "Web 3.0" currently is quite decently written and sourced, but that there is a great chance of it quickly spiralling back into the pile of junk it used to be as a stand-alone article if split off again. Regards, —Ruud 23:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong redirect[edit]

This page currently redirects to Web 2.0#Web 3.0 but Web 2.0 has no such section. In fact, it does not even contain the character sequence "3.0" anywhere. I suggest to redirect it to Semantic Web#Web 3.0 instead where the topic is at least cursory discussed. --Pgallert (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneMr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)