Web 2.0

Jeneane Sessum is writing on Web 2.0 stuff. To her I say Blog! Oh, geez that felt so good! But I digress.

Jeneane writes about Web 1.0 and 2.0 terminology and says you can’t have consensus on the web. That’s an excellent point. We had agreement about the web. We agreed on the tech, the naming schema, the hardware, the protocols, and the languages–but that’s primarily because a couple of big players Pushed Their Weight Around at Strategic Times. But web and consensus–would this be the same consensus that rules at the Wikipedia? There is none. When there is, you’ll know because the Wikipedia will look like one great big Power Point presentation. Same with the web, only much bigger.

As for Web 2.0, I don’t care much now about what people use. After recent events including the disappointment about the SxSW panel, I lost a lot of my pugnaciousness when it comes to tilting at windmills. (More on this, later, in a separate post.)

No, the only thing I have against Web 2.0 is some of your crappy Web 2.0 code is getting mixed up in my web page, and I want you to stop. This all isn’t a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup: I’m not peanut butter, and your misuse, abuse, and over use of technology just cuz is not chocolate; these do not work great together. Pretend for a moment that you want people to use your code, and for goodness sake, beta is not a permanent state: release something!

Speaking of releasing, Jeneane also writes about being able to Shuffle our bits about; by this she means being able to grab her Blogger entries and move them elsewhere, or as Doc Searls mentions, being able to upload photos to many places. (Question: why?)

When Jeneane had asked my opinion of BubbleShare, I replied that a drawback I saw to the service is it doesn’t have an API. Without an API, tools can’t interface to it, photos can’t be moved from other services, and we can’t move photos from outside this service. I would never add or upload to a centralized service that doesn’t give me an out.

But to focus: this is about Web 2.0. This is about a vote on not using this term anymore–which is about the most silly ass thing I’ve heard all month, even if the purpose for the vote is introducing yet another piece of ‘code’ to clutter our pages. We need our terms, Stowe–if we don’t have our terms, how will we separate the cool kids from the hacks with money? So, if Web 2.0 is now contaminated with all the ‘built to flip’ nonsense about, what about another name?

What about Web2.0? The Web, squared. Or even Web3.14159265–the Web, raised to the power of Pi? Maybe Web0, for Web, Sub-Zero. Too much like a superhero? Wait, don’t go! I have a million names! There’s…


But at least we can validate the Web 2.0 with the Web 2.0 Validator. Be brave, add your own rules. After all, this is Web 2.0–the read/write web.

Thanks to Zo for the link.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email