File talk:Web20buzz.svg

Intelligence is spelled wrong. -anonymous

SaaS appears twice. Why is that? 9ign 22:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folksonomy

It would be cool if this talk page had links to the terms in this picture, which serves as a visual index of web 2.0 terms like:

Folksonomy Long Tail SaaS

Mathiastck 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least ⅓ of the mapping is plain wrong

You can't claim the following concepts to have appeared as early as you did:

web as a platform
wiki
weblog
web services
collective intelligence

Indeed, some folks experimented very early with all those ideas, but it never went beyond their small communities. Granted, intelligence has been put in common since the early days of humanity, but in the web 2.0 context, this is about taking advantage of every bit of decision from (maybe anonymous) web users, in order to improve the service they are using; you can't put that prior WWW invention!

Besides, things like MCF (a very obscure ancestor of RDF) has never been associated with the web 2.0 buzz.

Also, the acronym SaaS, which certainly is now part of the Web 2.0 phenomenon (eventhough not really part of the associated buzz), is a relatively new kid on the block: I would have put it on 2005, not before.

Other components are okay, but if you talk about buzz, I'm surprised Google isn't there at all! -- XC 08:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know about the other concepts you mention, but "wiki" dates back to 1994 with WikiWikiWeb. So in fact, it could even be placed earlier in the timeline than it is now. I think the point of this image is to illustrate how the concepts of 2.0 existed before 2.0 "officially" began. That doesn't necessarily mean that the concepts were commonly used or used as "buzzwords" beforehand, though for some of them, it might. -kotra 22:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point: you're not using this figure to illustrate the Web 2.0 buzz, but rather to express an opinion on the Web 2.0 concept itself. If you disagree with this sentence excerpted from the article: Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to Web technical specifications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the web as a platform., then you should remove it, and maybe explain why in the Talk page; building a map to explain that most of the technologies used at the web 2.0 era have existed since the early days of the web (you forgot HTML) is too much effort to express such a sadly common opinion.

The sentence you quote and this image are not mutually exclusive. This image, in line with the sentence, does not illustrate an update to web technical specifications, but it does suggest how some technologies and ideas normally associated with 2.0 existed earlier. The latter is not related to the sentence you quoted, but it is in fact perfectly in line with another sentence in the article: "Some technology experts, notably Tim Berners-Lee, have questioned whether one can use the term in a meaningful way, since many of the technology components of "Web 2.0" have existed since the early days of the Web." I fail to see how these two sentences are at odds with each other, or even if they were, that we should prevent one of the sentences from being illustrated. -kotra 00:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Google, I think if we start adding key Web 2.0 companies that may sometimes be used as buzzwords, the timeline would quickly become crowded. Though I admit "google" could be singled out due to its use as a verb. -kotra 22:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is why I only mentioned Google, although Ebay would certainly be relevant too: both have been among the first to leverage this new phenomenon: non-specialists, people who don't know the difference between the Web and the Internet, got the power to contribute instead of just consuming. XC 21:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of companies that have done the same. Wikipedia, Flickr, del.icio.us, and YouTube come immediately to mind. My point is that if we started mentioning important Web 2.0 companies, the image would quickly stop being about buzzwords, and instead be a timeline of notable 2.0 companies. As for "google", it is indeed a word in its own right now, but is it a buzzword? It's a way to say "do a web search", but that meaning isn't necessarily a buzzword. For example, "velcro" and"superglue" are not buzzwords, but they are also common words derived from brand names. -kotra 00:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]