Web 2.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from WEB 2.0)
Jump to: navigation, search
A tag cloud (a typical Web 2.0 phenomenon in itself) presenting Web 2.0 themes

Web 2.0 describes World Wide Web sites that emphasize user-generated content, usability, and interoperability. The term was popularized by Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty at the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 Conference in late 2004, though it was first coined by Darcy DiNucci in 1999.[1][2][3][4] Although Web 2.0 suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specification, but rather to cumulative changes in the way Web pages are made and used.

A Web 2.0 site may allow users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to Web sites where people are limited to the passive viewing of content. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, blogs, wikis, folksonomies, video sharing sites, hosted services, Web applications, and mashups.[5]

Whether Web 2.0 is substantively different from prior Web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who describes the term as jargon.[6] His original vision of the Web was "a collaborative medium, a place where we [could] all meet and read and write".[7][8] On the other hand, the term Semantic Web (sometimes referred to as Web 3.0)[citation needed] was coined by Tim Berners-Lee for a web of data that can be processed by machines.[9]


"Web 1.0"[edit]

Web 1.0 is a retronym referring to the first stage of the World Wide Web's evolution.

According to Cormode, G. and Krishnamurthy, B. (2008): "content creators were few in Web 1.0 with the vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content." [10]

Personal web pages were common, consisting mainly of static pages hosted on ISP-run web servers, or on free web hosting services such as Geocities.[11][12] With the advent of Web 2.0, it was more common for the average web user to have social networking profiles on sites such as Myspace and Facebook, as well as personal blogs on one of the new low-cost web hosting services or a dedicated blog host like Blogger or LiveJournal. The content for both were generated dynamically from content stored in a relational database[citation needed], allowing for readers to comment directly on pages in a way that was not previously common.[citation needed]

Web 2.0 capabilities were present in the days of Web 1.0 but implemented differently. For example, a Web 1.0 site may have had a guestbook page to publish visitor comments, instead of a comment section at the end of each page. Server performance and bandwidth considerations meant that having a long comments thread on each page could potentially slow down the site.

Terry Flew, in his 3rd Edition of New Media described what he believed to characterize the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0:

"move from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from publishing to participation, from web content as the outcome of large up-front investment to an ongoing and interactive process, and from content management systems to links based on tagging (folksonomy)".

Flew believed it to be the above factors that form the basic change in trends that resulted in the onset of the Web 2.0 "craze".[13]


Some design elements of a Web 1.0 site include:[14]

Web 2.0[edit]

The term "Web 2.0" was first used in January 1999 by Darcy DiNucci, a consultant on electronic information design (information architecture). In her article, "Fragmented Future", DiNucci writes:[4]

The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven.

Writing when Palm Inc. was introducing its first Web-capable personal digital assistant, supporting Web access with WAP, DiNucci saw the Web "fragmenting" into a future that extended beyond the browser/PC combination it was identified with. She focused on how the basic information structure and hyperlinking mechanism introduced by HTTP would be used by a variety of devices and platforms. As such, her use of the "2.0" designation refers to a next version of the Web that does not directly relate to the term's current use.[citation needed]

The term Web 2.0 did not resurface until 2002.[18][19][20][21] These authors focus on the concepts currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a universal, standards-based integration platform".[20] John Robb wrote: "What is Web 2.0? It is a system that breaks with the old model of centralized Web sites and moves the power of the Web/Internet to the desktop."[21]

In 2004, the term began its rise in popularity when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, John Battelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform", where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business for you".[22] They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. O'Reilly and Battelle contrasted Web 2.0 with what they called "Web 1.0". They associated this term with the business models of Netscape and the Encyclopædia Britannica Online. For example,

Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.[23]

In short, Netscape focused on creating software, releasing updates and bug fixes, and distributing it to the end users. O'Reilly contrasted this with Google, a company that did not at the time focus on producing end-user software, but instead on providing a service based on data such as the links Web page authors make between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer Web search based on reputation through its "PageRank" algorithm. Unlike software, which undergoes scheduled releases, such services are constantly updated, a process called "the perpetual beta". A similar difference can be seen between the Encyclopædia Britannica Online and Wikipedia: while the Britannica relies upon experts to create articles and releases them periodically in publications, Wikipedia relies on trust in (sometimes anonymous) community members to constantly and quickly build content. Wikipedia is not based on expertise but rather an adaptation of the open source software adage "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", and it produces and updates articles constantly. O'Reilly's Web 2.0 conferences have been held every year since 2004, attracting entrepreneurs, large companies, and technology reporters.

The popularity of Web 2.0 was acknowledged by 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year (You).[24] That is, TIME selected the masses of users who were participating in content creation on social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites. In the cover story, Lev Grossman explains:

It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world but also change the way the world changes.


A list of ways that people can volunteer to improve Mass Effect Wiki, an example of content generated by users working collaboratively.
Edit box interface through which anyone could edit a Wikipedia article.

Instead of merely reading a Web 2.0 site, a user is invited to contribute to the site's content by commenting on published articles or creating a user account or profile on the site, which may enable increased participation. By increasing emphasis on these already-extant capabilities, they encourage the user to rely more on their browser for user interface, application software and file storage facilities. This has been called "network as platform" computing.[2] Major features of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, self-publishing platforms, tagging, like buttons, and social bookmarking. Users can provide the data that is on a Web 2.0 site and exercise some control over that data.[2][25] These sites may have an "architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.[1][2] Some scholars have put forth cloud computing as an example of Web 2.0 because cloud computing is simply an implication of computing on the Internet.[26]

Web 2.0 offers all users the same freedom to contribute.[citation needed] While this opens the possibility for serious debate and collaboration, it also increases the incidence of "spamming" and "trolling" by unscrupulous or misanthropic users. The impossibility of excluding group members who don’t contribute to the provision of goods from sharing profits gives rise to the possibility that serious members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and free ride on the contribution of others.[27] This requires what is sometimes called radical trust by the management of the Web site. According to Best,[28] the characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, Web standards, and scalability. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom[29] and collective intelligence[30] by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0.

The key features of Web 2.0 [31] include:

  1. Folksonomy - free classification of information; allows users to collectively classify and find information (e.g. tagging)
  2. Rich User Experience - dynamic content; responsive to user input
  3. User Participation - information flows two ways between site owner and site user by means of evaluation, review, and commenting. Site users add content for others to see
  4. Software as a service - Web 2.0 sites developed APIs to allow automated usage, such as by an app or mashup
  5. Mass Participation - Universal web access leads to differentiation of concerns from the traditional internet user base

In 2005, Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty held a brainstorming session to elucidate characteristics and components of the Web 1.0 -> 2.0 transition and what changed:[32] Their list included both technical aspects and specific web sites/services, many of which have since gone defunct.

Web 1.0 Web 2.0
DoubleClick Google AdSense
Ofoto Flickr
Akamai BitTorrent
mp3.com Napster
Britannica Online Wikipedia
personal websites blogging
evite upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation search engine optimization
page views cost per click
screen scraping web services
publishing participation
content management systems wikis
directories (taxonomy) tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness syndication


The client-side (Web browser) technologies used in Web 2.0 development include Ajax and JavaScript frameworks such as YUI Library, Dojo Toolkit, MooTools, jQuery, Ext JS and Prototype JavaScript Framework. Ajax programming uses JavaScript and the Document Object Model to update selected regions of the page area without undergoing a full page reload.

To allow users to continue to interact with the page, communications such as data requests going to the server are separated from data coming back to the page (asynchronously). Otherwise, the user would have to routinely wait for the data to come back before they can do anything else on that page, just as a user has to wait for a page to complete the reload. This also increases overall performance of the site, as the sending of requests can complete quicker independent of blocking and queueing required to send data back to the client.

The data fetched by an Ajax request is typically formatted in XML or JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format, two widely used structured data formats. Since both of these formats are natively understood by JavaScript, a programmer can easily use them to transmit structured data in their Web application. When this data is received via Ajax, the JavaScript program then uses the Document Object Model (DOM) to dynamically update the Web page based on the new data, allowing for a rapid and interactive user experience. In short, using these techniques, Web designers can make their pages function like desktop applications. For example, Google Docs uses this technique to create a Web-based word processor.

As a widely available plugin independent of W3C standards (the World Wide Web Consortium is the governing body of Web standards and protocols), Adobe Flash is capable of doing many things that were not possible pre-HTML5. Of Flash's many capabilities, the most commonly used is its ability to integrate streaming multimedia into HTML pages. With the introduction of HTML5 in 2010 and growing concerns with Flash's security, the role of Flash is decreasing.

In addition to Flash and Ajax, JavaScript/Ajax frameworks have recently become a very popular means of creating Web 2.0 sites. At their core, these frameworks use the same technology as JavaScript, Ajax, and the DOM. However, frameworks smooth over inconsistencies between Web browsers and extend the functionality available to developers. Many of them also come with customizable, prefabricated 'widgets' that accomplish such common tasks as picking a date from a calendar, displaying a data chart, or making a tabbed panel.

On the server-side, Web 2.0 uses many of the same technologies as Web 1.0. Languages such as PHP, Ruby, Perl, Python, as well as Enterprise Java (J2EE) and Microsoft.NET Framework, are used by developers to output data dynamically using information from files and databases. This allows websites and web services to share machine readable formats such as XML (Atom, RSS, etc.) and JSON. When data is available in one of these formats, another website can use it to integrate a portion of that site's functionality.


Web 2.0 can be described in three parts:

  • Rich Internet application (RIA) — defines the experience brought from desktop to browser whether it is from a graphical point of view or usability point of view.
  • Web-oriented architecture (WOA) — defines how Web 2.0 applications expose their functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate the functionality providing a set of much richer applications. Examples are feeds, RSS, Web Services, mash-ups.
  • Social Web — defines how Web 2.0 tends to interact much more with the end user and make the end-user an integral part.

As such, Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client- and server-side software, content syndication and the use of network protocols. Standards-oriented Web browsers may use plug-ins and software extensions to handle the content and the user interactions. Web 2.0 sites provide users with information storage, creation, and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment now known as "Web 1.0".

Web 2.0 sites include the following features and techniques, referred to as the acronym SLATES by Andrew McAfee:[33]

Finding information through keyword search.
Connects information sources together using the model of the Web.
The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many authors. Wiki users may extend, undo and redo each other's work. Comment systems allow readers to contribute.
Categorization of content by users adding "tags" — short, usually one-word descriptions — to facilitate searching. Collections of tags created by many users within a single system may be referred to as "folksonomies" (i.e., folk taxonomies).
Software that makes the Web an application platform as well as a document server. Examples include Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, ActiveX, Oracle Java, QuickTime, and Windows Media.
The use of syndication technology, such as RSS to notify users of content changes.

While SLATES forms the basic framework of Enterprise 2.0, it does not contradict all of the higher level Web 2.0 design patterns and business models. It includes discussions of self-service IT, the long tail of enterprise IT demand, and many other consequences of the Web 2.0 era in enterprise uses.[34]


A third important part of Web 2.0 is the Social web. The social Web consists of a number of online tools and platforms where people share their perspectives, opinions, thoughts and experiences. Web 2.0 applications tend to interact much more with the end user. As such, the end user is not only a user of the application but also a participant by:

The popularity of the term Web 2.0, along with the increasing use of blogs, wikis, and social networking technologies, has led many in academia and business to append a flurry of 2.0's to existing concepts and fields of study,[35] including Library 2.0, Social Work 2.0,[36] Enterprise 2.0, PR 2.0,[37] Classroom 2.0,[38] Publishing 2.0,[39] Medicine 2.0,[40] Telco 2.0, Travel 2.0, Government 2.0,[41] and even Porn 2.0.[42] Many of these 2.0s refer to Web 2.0 technologies as the source of the new version in their respective disciplines and areas. For example, in the Talis white paper "Library 2.0: The Challenge of Disruptive Innovation", Paul Miller argues

Blogs, wikis and RSS are often held up as exemplary manifestations of Web 2.0. A reader of a blog or a wiki is provided with tools to add a comment or even, in the case of the wiki, to edit the content. This is what we call the Read/Write web. Talis believes that Library 2.0 means harnessing this type of participation so that libraries can benefit from increasingly rich collaborative cataloging efforts, such as including contributions from partner libraries as well as adding rich enhancements, such as book jackets or movie files, to records from publishers and others.[43]

Here, Miller links Web 2.0 technologies and the culture of participation that they engender to the field of library science, supporting his claim that there is now a "Library 2.0". Many of the other proponents of new 2.0s mentioned here use similar methods.

The meaning of Web 2.0 is role dependent. For example, some use Web 2.0 to establish and maintain relationships through social networks, while some marketing managers might use this promising technology to "end-run traditionally unresponsive I.T. department[s]."[44]

There is a debate over the use of Web 2.0 technologies in mainstream education. Issues under consideration include the understanding of students' different learning modes; the conflicts between ideas entrenched in informal on-line communities and educational establishments' views on the production and authentication of 'formal' knowledge; and questions about privacy, plagiarism, shared authorship and the ownership of knowledge and information produced and/or published on line.[45]

Web 2.0 is used for interactive marketing. A growing number of marketers are using Web 2.0 tools to collaborate with consumers on product development, service enhancement and promotion. Companies can use Web 2.0 tools to improve collaboration with both its business partners and consumers. Among other things, company employees have created wikis—Web sites that allow users to add, delete, and edit content — to list answers to frequently asked questions about each product, and consumers have added significant contributions. Another marketing Web 2.0 lure is to make sure consumers can use the online community to network among themselves on topics of their own choosing.[46]

Mainstream media usage of Web 2.0 is increasing. Saturating media hubs—like The New York Times, PC Magazine and Business Week — with links to popular new Web sites and services, is critical to achieving the threshold for mass adoption of those services.[47]

User web content can be used to gauge consumer satisfaction. In a recent article for Bank Technology News, Shane Kite describes how Citigroup's Global Transaction Services unit monitors social media outlets to address customer issues and improve products.[48]

According to Google Timeline, the term Web 2.0 was discussed and indexed most frequently in 2005, 2007 and 2008. Its average use is continuously declining by 2–4% per quarter since April 2008.[citation needed]

Web 2.0 in education[edit]

Will Richardson stated in Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and other Powerful Web tools for the Classrooms, 3rd Edition that, "The Web has the potential to radically change what we assume about teaching and learning, and it presents us with important questions to ponder: What needs to change about our curriculum when our students have the ability to reach audiences far beyond our classroom walls?"[49]

Web 2.0 could lead to major shifts in the way education is provided for students. One of the biggest shifts that Will Richardson points out in his book Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms[49] is the fact that education should be collaborative.

"Weblogs are not built on static chunks of content. Instead they are comprised of reflections and conversations that in many cases are updated every day [...] They demand interaction."[49] Will Richardson's observation of the essence of Weblogs speaks directly to why blogs could be well suited to discussion based classrooms. As long as the students are invested in the project, Weblogs give students a public space to interact with one another and the content of the class.

Some scientific studies have also noted Web 2.0's potential to increase the public's understanding of science, which could in turn positively affect governments' policy decisions. A 2012 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison notes that "...the internet could be a crucial tool in increasing the general public’s level of science literacy. This increase could then lead to better communication between researchers and the public, more substantive discussion, and more informed policy decision." [50]

Web-based applications and desktops[edit]

Ajax has prompted the development of Web sites that mimic desktop applications, such as word processing, the spreadsheet, and slide-show presentation. WYSIWYG wiki and blogging sites replicate many features of PC authoring applications.

Several browser-based services have emerged, including EyeOS[51] and YouOS.(No longer active.)[52] Although named operating systems, many of these services are application platforms. They mimic the user experience of desktop operating-systems, offering features and applications similar to a PC environment, and are able to run within any modern browser. However, these so-called "operating systems" do not directly control the hardware on the client's computer.

Numerous web-based application services appeared during the dot-com bubble of 1997–2001 and then vanished, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers.

Distribution of media[edit]

XML and RSS[edit]

Many regard syndication of site content as a Web 2.0 feature. Syndication uses standardized protocols to permit end-users to make use of a site's data in another context (such as another Web site, a browser plugin, or a separate desktop application). Protocols permitting syndication include RSS (really simple syndication, also known as Web syndication), RDF (as in RSS 1.1), and Atom, all of which are XML-based formats. Observers have started to refer to these technologies as Web feeds.

Specialized protocols such as FOAF and XFN (both for social networking) extend the functionality of sites and permit end-users to interact without centralized Web sites.

Web APIs[edit]

Main article: Web API

Web 2.0 often uses machine-based interactions such as REST and SOAP. Servers often expose proprietary Application programming interfaces (API), but standard APIs (for example, for posting to a blog or notifying a blog update) have also come into use. Most communications through APIs involve XML or JSON payloads.

REST APIs, through their use of self-descriptive messages and hypermedia as the engine of application state, should be self-describing once an entry URI is known. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) is the standard way of publishing a SOAP Application programming interface and there are a range of Web service specifications.


Critics of the term claim that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of the World Wide Web at all, but merely continues to use so-called "Web 1.0" technologies and concepts.[6] First, techniques such as Ajax do not replace underlying protocols like HTTP, but add an additional layer of abstraction on top of them. Second, many of the ideas of Web 2.0 were already featured in implementations on networked systems well before the term "Web 2.0" emerged. Amazon.com, for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in 2002.[53] Previous developments also came from research in computer-supported collaborative learning and computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) and from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino, all phenomena that preceded Web 2.0.

Tim Berners-Lee, who developed the initial technologies of the Web, has been an outspoken critic of the term, while supporting many of the elements associated with it.[54] In the environment where the Web originated, each workstation had a dedicated IP address and always-on connection to the Internet. Sharing a file or publishing a web page was as simple as moving the file into a shared folder.[55]

Perhaps the most common criticism is that the term is unclear or simply a buzzword. For many people who work in software, version numbers like 2.0 and 3.0 are for software versioning or hardware versioning only, and to assign 2.0 arbitrarily to many technologies with a variety of real version numbers has no meaning. The web does not have a version number. For example, in a 2006 interview with IBM developerWorks podcast editor Scott Laningham, Tim Berners-Lee described the term "Web 2.0" as a jargon:[6]

"Nobody really knows what it means...If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along... Web 2.0, for some people, it means moving some of the thinking [to the] client side, so making it more immediate, but the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be... a collaborative space where people can interact."

Other critics labeled Web 2.0 "a second bubble" (referring to the Dot-com bubble of circa 1998–2001), suggesting that too many Web 2.0 companies attempt to develop the same product with a lack of business models. For example, The Economist has dubbed the mid- to late-2000s focus on Web companies as "Bubble 2.0".[56]

In terms of Web 2.0's social impact, critics such as Andrew Keen argue that Web 2.0 has created a cult of digital narcissism and amateurism, which undermines the notion of expertise by allowing anybody, anywhere to share and place undue value upon their own opinions about any subject and post any kind of content, regardless of their actual talent, knowledge, credentials, biases or possible hidden agendas. Keen's 2007 book, Cult of the Amateur, argues that the core assumption of Web 2.0, that all opinions and user-generated content are equally valuable and relevant, is misguided. Additionally, Sunday Times reviewer John Flintoff has characterized Web 2.0 as "creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity: uninformed political commentary, unseemly home videos, embarrassingly amateurish music, unreadable poems, essays and novels... [and that Wikipedia is full of] mistakes, half truths and misunderstandings".[57] In a 1994 Wired interview, Steve Jobs, forecasting the future development of the web for personal publishing, said "The Web is great because that person can't foist anything on you - you have to go get it. They can make themselves available, but if nobody wants to look at their site, that's fine. To be honest, most people who have something to say get published now."[58] Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association has been vocal about his opposition to Web 2.0 due to the lack of expertise that it outwardly claims, though he believes that there is hope for the future.[59]

"The task before us is to extend into the digital world the virtues of authenticity, expertise, and scholarly apparatus that have evolved over the 500 years of print, virtues often absent in the manuscript age that preceded print".

There is also a growing body of critique of Web 2.0 from the perspective of political economy. Since, as Tim O'Reilly and John Batelle put it, Web 2.0 is based on the "customers... building your business for you,"[22] critics have argued that sites such as Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are exploiting the "free labor"[60] of user-created content.[61] Web 2.0 sites use Terms of Service agreements to claim perpetual licenses to user-generated content, and they use that content to create profiles of users to sell to marketers.[62] This is part of increased surveillance of user activity happening within Web 2.0 sites.[63] Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society argues that such data can be used by governments who want to monitor dissident citizens.[64]

The rise of AJAX-driven web sites where much of the content must be rendered on the client has meant that users of older hardware are given worse performance versus a site purely composed of HTML, where the processing takes place on the server.[65] Accessibility for disabled or impaired users may also suffer in a Web 2.0 site.[66]


In November 2004, CMP Media applied to the USPTO for a service mark on the use of the term "WEB 2.0" for live events.[67] On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a cease-and-desist demand to the Irish non-profit organization IT@Cork on May 24, 2006,[68] but retracted it two days later.[69] The "WEB 2.0" service mark registration passed final PTO Examining Attorney review on May 10, 2006, and was registered on June 27, 2006.[67] The European Union application (which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland)[70] was declined on May 23, 2007.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ a b Graham, Paul (November 2005). "Web 2.0". Retrieved 2006-08-02. I first heard the phrase 'Web 2.0' in the name of the Web 2.0 conference in 2004. 
  2. ^ a b c d O'Reilly, Tim (2005-09-30). "What Is Web 2.0". O'Reilly Network. Retrieved 2006-08-06. 
  3. ^ Strickland, Jonathan (2007-12-28). "How Web 2.0 Works". computer.howstuffworks.com. Retrieved 2015-02-28. 
  4. ^ a b DiNucci, Darcy (1999). "Fragmented Future" (PDF). Print 53 (4): 32. 
  5. ^ 031072208 (2005-10-01). "Web 2.0: Compact Definition". Scholar.googleusercontent.com. Retrieved 2013-06-15. [dead link]
  6. ^ a b c "DeveloperWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee". 2006-07-28. Retrieved 2012-08-05. 
  7. ^ "Berners-Lee on the read/write web". BBC News. 2005-08-09. Retrieved 2012-08-05. 
  8. ^ Richardson, Will (2009). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms (2nd ed.). California: Corwin Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-4129-5972-8. 
  9. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim; James Hendler; Ora Lassila (May 17, 2001). "The Semantic Web". Scientific American Magazine. Retrieved March 26, 2008. 
  10. ^ Balachander Krishnamurthy, Graham Cormode (2 June 2008). "Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0". First Monday, Volume 13 Number 6. 
  11. ^ "Geocities – Dead media archive". 
  12. ^ "So Long, GeoCities: We Forgot You Still Existed". 
  13. ^ Flew, Terry (2008). New Media: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. p. 19. 
  14. ^ Viswanathan, Ganesh; Dutt Mathur, Punit; Yammiyavar, Pradeep (March 2010). "From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and beyond: Reviewing usability heuristic criteria taking music sites as case studies". IndiaHCI Conference. Mumbai. Retrieved 20 February 2015. 
  15. ^ Web 1.0 defined - How stuff works
  16. ^ "Web 1.0 Revisited - Too many stupid buttons".[dead link] Complexify.com.
  17. ^ "The Right Size of Software". 
  18. ^ Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. RSS: INJAN (It's not just about news). Blog. Blog Data Space. August 21 OpenLinkSW.com
  19. ^ Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. Jeff Bezos Comments about Web Services. Blog. Blog Data Space. September 25. OpenLinkSW.com
  20. ^ a b Knorr, Eric. 2003. The year of Web services. CIO, December 15.
  21. ^ a b "John Robb's Weblog". Jrobb.mindplex.org. Retrieved 2011-02-06. [dead link]
  22. ^ a b O'Reilly, Tim, and John Battelle. 2004. Opening Welcome: State of the Internet Industry. In San Francisco, California, October 5.
  23. ^ O’Reilly, T., 2005.
  24. ^ Grossman, Lev. 2006. Person of the Year: You. December 25. Time.com
  25. ^ Hinchcliffe, Dion (2006-04-02). "The State of Web 2.0". Web Services. Archived from the original on 2007-05-15. Retrieved 2006-08-06. 
  26. ^ [SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=732483 Wireless Communications and Computing at a Crossroads: New Paradigms and Their Impact on Theories Governing the Public's Right to Spectrum Access], Patrick S. Ryan, Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 239, 2005.
  27. ^ Gerald Marwell and Ruth E. Ames: "Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. I. Resources, Interest, Group Size, and the Free-Rider Problem". The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (May, 1979), pp. 1335–1360
  28. ^ Best, D., 2006. Web 2.0 Next Big Thing or Next Big Internet Bubble? Lecture Web Information Systems. Techni sche Universiteit Eindhoven.
  29. ^ Greenmeier, Larry and Gaudin, Sharon. "Amid The Rush To Web 2.0, Some Words Of Warning – Web 2.0 – InformationWeek". www.informationweek.com. Retrieved 2008-04-04. 
  30. ^ O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, p. 30
  31. ^ "7 Key features of web 2.0". www.webApprater.com. 2012-09-17. Retrieved 2012-09-17. 
  32. ^ "What Is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software". 
  33. ^ McAfee, A. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. MIT Sloan Management review. Vol. 47, No. 3, p. 21–28.
  34. ^ Web 2.0 definition updated and Enterprise 2.0 emerges | ZDNet[dead link]
  35. ^ Schick, S., 2005. I second that emotion. IT Business.ca (Canada).
  36. ^ Singer, Jonathan B. (2009). The Role and Regulations for Technology in Social Work Practice and E-Therapy: Social Work 2.0. In A. R. Roberts (Ed). New York, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-536937-3. [dead link]
  37. ^ Breakenridge, D., 2008. PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences 1st ed., FT Press.
  38. ^ "Classroom 2.0". Retrieved 2010-09-22. 
  39. ^ Karp, Scott. "Publishing 2.0". Publishing2.com. Retrieved 2011-02-06. 
  40. ^ Medicine 2.0
  41. ^ Eggers, William D. (2005). Government 2.0: Using Technology to Improve Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Democracy. Lanham MD, U.S.A.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7425-4175-7. 
  42. ^ Rusak, Sergey (2009). Web 2.0 Becoming An Outdated Term. Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.: Progressive Advertiser. Archived from the original on March 3, 2010. [dead link]
  43. ^ Miller 10–11
  44. ^ "i-Technology Viewpoint: It's Time to Take the Quotation Marks Off "Web 2.0" | Web 2.0 Journal". Web2.sys-con.com. Retrieved 2011-02-06. 
  45. ^ Anderson, Paul (2007). "What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education". JISC Technology and Standards Watch. CiteSeerX: 
  46. ^ Parise, Salvatore (2008-12-16). "The Secrets of Marketing in a Web 2.0 World". The Wall Street Journal. 
  47. ^ MacManus, Richard (2007). "Mainstream Media Usage of Web 2.0 Services is Increasing". Read Write Web. 
  48. ^ "Banks use Web 2.0 to increase customer retention". PNT Marketing Services. 2010. 
  49. ^ a b c Richardson, Will (2010). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Corwin Press. p. 171. ISBN 978-1-4129-7747-0. 
  50. ^ Ladwig, Peter and Kajsa E. Dalrymple, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele and Elizabeth A. Corley (2012). "Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding". Science and Public Policy. pp. 761–774. (subscription required (help)). 
  51. ^ "Can eyeOS Succeed Where Desktop.com Failed?". www.techcrunch.com. Retrieved 2007-12-12. 
  52. ^ "Tech Beat Hey YouOS! – BusinessWeek". www.businessweek.com. Retrieved 2007-12-12. 
  53. ^ O'Reilly, Tim (2002-06-18). "Amazon Web Services API". O'Reilly Network. Retrieved 2006-05-27. [dead link]
  54. ^ "Tim Berners-Lee on Web 2.0: "nobody even knows what it means"". He's big on blogs and wikis, and has nothing but good things to say about AJAX, but Berners-Lee faults the term "Web 2.0" for lacking any coherent meaning. 
  55. ^ "developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee". 
  56. ^ "Bubble 2.0". The Economist. 2005-12-22. Retrieved 2006-12-20. 
  57. ^ Flintoff, JohnPaul (2007-06-03). "Thinking is so over". The Times (London). 
  58. ^ Wolf, Gary. "Steve Jobs: The Next Insanely Great Thing". Wired. 
  59. ^ Gorman, Michael. "Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part 1". Retrieved 26 April 2011. 
  60. ^ Terranova, Tiziana (2000). "Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy". Social Text 18 (2): 33–58. doi:10.1215/01642472-18-2_63-33. 
  61. ^ Peterson, Soren (2008). "Loser Generated Content: From Participation to Exploitation". First Monday 13 (3). 
  62. ^ Gehl, Robert (2011). "The Archive and the Processor: The Internal Logic of Web 2.0". New Media and Society 13 (8): 1228–1244. doi:10.1177/1461444811401735. 
  63. ^ Andrejevic, Mark (2007). iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era. Lawrence, KS: U P of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-1528-8. 
  64. ^ Zittrain, Jonathan. "Minds for Sale". Berkman Center for the Internet and Society. Retrieved 13 April 2012. 
  65. ^ "Accessibility in Web 2.0 technology". In the Web application domain, making static Web pages accessible is relatively easy. But for Web 2.0 technology, dynamic content and fancy visual effects can make accessibility testing very difficult. 
  66. ^ "Web 2.0 and Accessibility". Archived from the original on 24 August 2014. Web 2.0 applications or websites are often very difficult to control by users with assistive technology. 
  67. ^ a b "USPTO serial number 78322306". Tarr.uspto.gov. Retrieved 2011-02-06. 
  68. ^ "O'Reilly and CMP Exercise Trademark on 'Web 2.0'". Slashdot. 2006-05-26. Retrieved 2006-05-27. 
  69. ^ Torkington, Nathan (2006-05-26). "O'Reilly's coverage of Web 2.0 as a service mark". O'Reilly Radar. Archived from the original on 15 January 2008. Retrieved 2006-06-01. 
  70. ^ "Application number 004972212". 2007. 

External links[edit]

  • Learning materials related to Web 2.0 at Wikiversity