I realize I haven’t talked much of the rabbit’s hole. Things have been happening too fast. I have made some encounters down there; got burnt a couple of times too. It is time I write a little about what I found.
I am going to do here something preposterous: defining web 2.0. Many have spectacularly failed in this attempt. Nobody really agrees about what it is anyway. Here are some examples of partially contradicting - or at best obscure - definitions:
«Web 2.0, refers to a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosted services — such as social-networking sites, wikis and folksonomies — which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing between users.»
Tim O’Reilly’s “compact” definition:
«Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. (This is what I’ve elsewhere called “harnessing collective intelligence.”)»
And here is his long definition.
«Web-based applications.»
So, here is my very own…
- Definition of Web 2.0:
-
Web 2.0 is a set of social structures added on top of the Good Old Internet (GOI).
Mathematical detour: In the very unlikely event there is a mathematician in the couple of persons reading my blog: think algebra. You take an abstract set (= good old internet GOI), like the set of integer numbers. Add an algebra to it (= social structure), like addition: suddenly you have a meaningful and organized set.
Each of the social structures that form web 2.0 (for example del.icio.us, stumble, facebook, twitter, digg) are mostly devoid of their own original content, but are full of meta-content, i.e. content about the content of the GOI. Some may think it is hogwash.
I actually saw pieces of news about a blog, commenting another blog, that was summarizing a newspaper article that was talking of…
But each of these sites provides alternative paths to the content of the GOI, balancing Google’s power. And as such, justify their existences.


