I’ll start with this one as it’s easiest for me. Once again this brings up the issue of “what is” versus def(x). I’ll attempt to talk about what web2.0 is, i.e. how people use the term and why as well as some common threads in various definitions (and of course, the definitions themselves). Then I’ll give my definition, or maybe I’ll give it first, and say why I think it’s better.
This might require a little backstory about my personal preferences in terms of defintions (simplicity, ubiquity etc).
So, web2.0.
I don’t want to make this a history lesson so I’ll skip the intro. Web2.0 is a term used to describe the generation of web services that have achieved popularity in the years since the dot-com bubble. The reason 2.0 is used (referring to software version iterations) is to imply a “new” and indeed iterative version of web services. (And indeed the term web services is very web2.0).
Since this is also aimed at people who are not familiar with the term, web2.0 has some classifying characteristics which allow one to evidence a 2.0 nature in a web company. The best discourse on this subject can be found here by Tim O’Reilly the original coiner of the term Web2.0.
Some examples are:
Web as a platform, the power of users (collective intelligence) and the long tail, remixability, data “inside” (as in intel inside).
I find the o’reilly article to be very informative and definitely the ultimate decider of a web2.0 company’s folksonification (lil joke2.0 *blush*) yet it requires significant mental investment to gain understanding before it can be applied.
Here’s my definition. First off, aim: you want a definition that can be applied quickly to a company which then decides if it is web2.0. It should include all the companies which are generally accepted to be web2.0 and should exclude those which are not. (e.g. “a company delivering a service on the web” would not be a good definition at all.)
So my definition is:
Web2.0:= a web-based product or service where use adds value. That is to say, the more a service is used, the more valuable it becomes to use.
The reason I like this definition is, applied correctly it gives the correct dataset and, above all, it is simple and easy to understand. Explaining web2.0 is often quite a hefty move but not with this definition.
I’ll re-read this later and see if more needs to be added.
[EDIT - I was just thinking about this, and realised that my definition here is as applies to specific companies, websites or products. The "2.0" part of the term seems to imply also an ethos that accompanies the defintion itself. The idea of use adding value. This "philosophy" is also part of the Web2.0 concept and is an easily extensible corollary.]
