Web 2.0 refers to World Wide Web websites that emphasize user-generated content, usability (ease of use, even by non-experts), and interoperability (this means that websites work well with other products , systems, and devices) for end users. The term was coined by Darcy DiNucci in 1999 and was popularized several years later by Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty at the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 Conference at the end of 2004. Web 2.0 does not refer to updates to technical specifications, but for changes in the way pages web designed and used.
Web 2.0 websites allow users to interact and collaborate with each other in social media dialogue as user-generated content creators in virtual communities, in contrast to the first generation of web site era 1.0 where people are limited to passive content viewing. Examples of Web 2.0 features include social networking sites and social media sites (eg, Facebook), blogs, wikis, folksonomies (keyword "tagging" on websites and links), video sharing sites (eg, YouTube), hosted services , Web applications ("apps"), collaborative consumption platforms, and mashup applications.
Whether Web 2.0 is substantially different from previous Web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who describes the term as jargon. The original vision of the Web is "collaborative media, a place where we [can] all meet and read and write." On the other hand, the term Semantic Web (sometimes referred to as Web 3.0) was created by Berners-Lee to refer to web content where meaning can be processed by machines.
Video Web 2.0
Histori
Web 1.0
Web 1.0 is a retronim that refers to the first stage of World Wide Web evolution. According to Cormode, G. and, Krishnamurthy, B. (2008): "Creators are few on Web 1.0 with most users only acting as content consumers." Private webpages are generic, mainly consisting of static pages hosted on a web server run by an ISP, or in a free web hosting service like GeoCities. With the advent of Web 2.0, it's more common for average web users to have social networking profiles on sites like Myspace and Facebook, as well as personal blogs at one of the new cheap web hosting services or special blog hosts like Blogger or LiveJournal. Content for both is dynamically generated from stored content, enabling the reader to comment directly on the page in previously unusual ways.
Some Web 2.0 capabilities are present in Web 1.0, but they are implemented differently. For example, website 1.0 may have a guestbook page to publish visitor comments, not a comment section at the end of each page. The server performance and bandwidth considerations should be taken into account, and long comments on each page can potentially slow the site. Terry Flew, in the 3rd edition of New Media, explains the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0:
"from private websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from publication to participation, from web content as a result of large up-front investments to ongoing and interactive processes, and from content management systems to links based on" tagging "website content using keyword (folksonomy) ".
Flying believed it to be the factor above which constitutes a fundamental change in trends that resulted in Web 2.0 "craze" emergence.
Characteristics
Some elements of Web site design 1.0 include:
- Static pages instead of dynamic HTML.
- Content is presented from a server filesystem rather than a relational database management system (RDBMS).
- Pages built using Server Side Includes or Common Gateway Interface (CGI) and not web applications written in dynamic programming languages ​​such as Perl, PHP, Python, or Ruby.
- Use of HTML 3.2-era elements such as frames and tables to position and align elements on a page. These are often used in combination with GIF spacers.
- Patented HTML extensions, such as & lt; blink & gt; and & lt; marquee & gt; tag, was introduced during the first browser war.
- Guestbook online.
- GIF buttons, graphs (typically 88x31 pixels) that promote web browsers, operating systems, text editors, and other products.
- HTML form sent via email. Support for server side scripting is rare on shared servers during this period. To provide a feedback mechanism for website visitors, a mailto form is used. A user will fill out the form, and after clicking the submit button the form, their email client will be launched and try to send an email containing the details of the form. The popularity and complications of mailto protocols cause browser developers to insert email clients into their browsers.
Web 2.0
The term "Web 2.0" was first used in January 1999 by Darcy DiNucci, information architecture consultant. In his article, "Fragmented Future", DiNucci writes:
The web that we know today, which is loaded into a browser window on a very static screen, is just the embryo of the impending Web. The first glitter of Web 2.0 began to emerge, and we are just beginning to see how the embryo can flourish. The web will be understood not as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether in which interactivity takes place. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV [...] your car dash [...] your phone [...] [handheld game machine]...] maybe even your microwave oven.
Write when Palm Inc. introduced his first Web-enabled personal digital assistant, supports Web access with WAP, DiNucci sees the Web "splitting" into a future that goes beyond the identified browser/PC combination. He focuses on how the basic information structure and hyperlink mechanism introduced by HTTP will be used by various devices and platforms. Thus, its use of "2.0" designation refers to the next version of the Web that is not directly related to the use of the current term.
The term Web 2.0 did not reappear until 2002. These authors focus on the concept that is currently associated with the terminology in which, as Scott Dietzen says, "The Web becomes a universal standards-based integration platform". In 2004, the term began to increase in popularity when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In his opening speech, John Battelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of "The Web as a Platform", in which software applications are built on the Web as opposed to the desktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they say, is that "customers build your business for you". They argue that user activity that generates content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or images) can be "used" to create value. O'Reilly and Battelle differentiate Web 2.0 with what they call "Web 1.0". They connect this term with Netscape's business model and EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica Online. As an example,
Netscape frames the "web as a platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product is a web browser, desktop app, and their strategy is to use their dominance in the browser market to build a market for high-priced server products. Control over the standards for displaying content and apps in browsers will, in theory, provide Netscape the kind of market power that Microsoft enjoys in the PC market. Just like the "horse-drawn carriage" frames the car as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promotes "webtop" to replace the desktop, and plans to fill the webtop with updates of information and applets pushed to webtop by the information provider who will buy Netscape server.
In short, Netscape focuses on making software, releasing updates and bug fixes, and distributing them to end users. O'Reilly compared this to Google, a company that at the time did not focus on producing end-user software, but instead provided data-driven services such as links created by web page builders between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer reputation-based Web search through the "PageRank" algorithm. Unlike software, which is experiencing a scheduled release, the service is constantly updated, a process called "eternal beta". A similar difference can be seen between EncyclopÃÆ'Â|dia Britannica Online and Wikipedia: while Britannica relies on experts to write articles and release them periodically in publications, Wikipedia relies on trust in community members (sometimes anonymously) to continue writing and editing content. The Wikipedia editor is not required to have educational credentials, such as a degree, in the subject in which they are editing. Wikipedia is not based on subject expertise, but rather on the adaptation of the proverbial open source software "given enough eyeballs, all superficial bugs". This proverb states that if enough users can see the software product code (or website), then this user will be able to fix "bug" or other issues. The community of Wikipedia volunteer editors produces, edits, and updates articles constantly. O'Reilly's Web 2.0 conference has been held annually since 2004, attracting entrepreneurs, representatives of major companies, technologists and technologists.
The popularity of Web 2.0 is recognized by the 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year ( You ). This means that TIME selects the masses of users who participate in content creation on social networks, blogs, wikis, and media-sharing sites. In the cover story, Lev Grossman explains:
This is a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about a cosmic summary of Wikipedia knowledge and a network of millions of YouTube channels and online MySpace metropolis. It's about the power of snatching away from the few and helping each other for nothing and how it will not only change the world but also change the way the world changes.
Characteristics
Instead of just reading Web 2.0 sites, users are invited to contribute to the site's content by commenting on published articles or creating an account or user profile on the site, which may allow for increased participation. By increasing the emphasis on these existing capabilities, they encourage users to rely more on their browsers for user interfaces, application software ("apps") and file storage facilities. It has been called "network as a" computing platform. Key features of Web 2.0 include social networking websites, own publishing platforms (eg, easy-to-use blogs and WordPress website creation tools), "tagging" (which allows users to label websites, videos, or photos in some way) , "Likes" button (which allows users to show they're happy with online content), and social bookmarking. Users can provide data on Web 2.0 sites and control the data. These sites may have a "participation architecture" that encourages users to add value to the app when they use it. Users can add value in many ways, such as by commenting on news on news websites, by uploading relevant photos on travel websites, or by adding links to a video or TED conversation related to the subject being discussed on the website. Some scholars argue that cloud computing is an example of Web 2.0 because cloud computing is just an implication of computing on the Internet.
Web 2.0 offers almost all users the same freedom to contribute. While this opens up the possibility for serious debate and collaboration, it also increases the incidence of "spam", "trolling", and can even make room for racist hatred, cyber-hate speech and defamation. The impossibility of not including group members who do not contribute to the provision of goods (that is, to the creation of user-generated websites) of the sharing of benefits (using the website) raises the possibility that serious members would prefer to withhold their contribution to the effort and "free ride" on the contributions of others. This requires what is sometimes called radical trust by Web site management.
According to Best, the characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, Web standards, and scalability. Further characteristics, such as openness, collective freedom and intelligence by way of user participation, can also be seen as an essential attribute of Web 2.0. Some websites require users to contribute user-generated content to have access to websites, to prevent "free ride".
Key features of Web 2.0 include:
- Folksonomy - a free information classification; allows users to classify and find information collectively (eg "tag" on websites, images, videos, or links)
- Rich user experience - dynamic content that is responsive to user input (e.g., users can "click" on an image to zoom in or find out more information)
- User participation - information flows both ways between site owners and site users by means of online reviews, reviews and comments. Site users also typically create user-generated content for others to view (e.g., Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia anyone can write for or edit)
- Software as a service (SaaS) - Website 2.0 develops APIs to enable automated use, such as by Web "apps" (software applications) or mashups
- Mass participation - almost universal web access leads to differentiation of concerns, from traditional Internet users (which tend to be hackers and computer hobbyists) to a wider range of users
Comparison with Web 1.0
In 2005, Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty held a brainstorming session to explain Web 1.0 characteristics and components into Web 2.0 transitions and what changed:
Maps Web 2.0
Technology
Client-side technologies (web browsers) used in Web 2.0 development include Ajax and JavaScript frameworks. Ajax programming uses JavaScript and Document Object Model to update a specific area of ​​the page area without performing a full page reload. To allow users to continue to interact with the page, communications such as data requests to servers are separated from the data returned to the page (asynchronously). Otherwise, users should routinely wait for the data to return before they can do anything else on the page, just as the user has to wait for the page to complete the reload. It also improves the overall performance of the site, as submission of requests can complete the blocking and faster queue required to send data back to the client. Data captured by Ajax requests are usually formatted in XML or JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format, two widely used structured data formats. Since both of these formats are understood by JavaScript, programmers can easily use them to transmit structured data in their Web applications. When this data is received via Ajax, the JavaScript program then uses the Document Object Model (DOM) to dynamically update Web pages based on new data, allowing for a fast and interactive user experience. In short, using this technique, Web designers can make their pages work like desktop apps. For example, Google Docs uses this technique to create a Web-based word processor.
As a widely available plugin of the W3C standard (the World Wide Web Consortium is the standard body and web protocol governing), Adobe Flash is capable of doing many things that might not be pre-HTML5. Of the many Flash 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 security, Flash's role has declined. In addition to Flash and Ajax, the JavaScript/Ajax framework has recently become a very popular tool for creating Web 2.0 sites. In essence, this framework uses the same technology as JavaScript, Ajax, and DOM. The framework, however, smooths the inconsistency between the Web browser and extends the functionality available to developers. Many of them are also equipped with qualified prefabricated widgets that complete common tasks such as selecting dates from calendars, displaying data graphs, or creating tab panes. On the server side, Web 2.0 uses much of the same technology as Web 1.0. Languages ​​such as Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, as well as Enterprise Java (J2EE) and Microsoft.NET Framework, are used by developers to dynamically generate data using information from files and databases. This allows web sites 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, other websites may use it to integrate some of the functionality of the site.
Drafts
Web 2.0 can be described in three parts:
- Rich Internet application (RIA) Ã, - defines the experience brought from the desktop to the browser, whether it is "rich" from a graphical point of view or a feature/interactivity or feature point of view.
- Web-oriented architecture (WOA) Ã, - defines how Web 2.0 applications expose their functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate functions that provide a much richer set of applications. Examples are feeds, RSS feeds, web services, mashups.
- The Social Web - defines how Web 2.0 websites tend to interact more with end users and make end users an integral part of websites, either by adding their profile, adding comments to the content, uploading new content, or adding user-generated content (for example, personal digital photos).
Thus, Web 2.0 brings together client-server and server-side capabilities, content syndication, and network protocol usage. A standard-oriented Web browser can use plug-ins and software extensions to handle user content and interaction. Website 2.0 provides users with unlimited information, creation, and dissemination capabilities in the environment now known as "Web 1.0".
Website 2.0 includes the following features and techniques, referred to as SLATES abbreviation by Andrew McAfee:
- S earch
- Search for information by keyword search.
- L ink to another website
- Connect the information resources together using the Web model.
- A uthoring
- The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many authors. Wiki users can extend, cancel, repeat and edit their respective jobs. The comment system allows readers to contribute their views.
- T ags
- User categorization adds "tags" - short, usually one or two word descriptions - to make searching easier. For example, users can mark metal songs as "death metal". The collection of tags created by many users in one system can be referred to as "folksonomies" (ie, taxonomy of the people).
- E xtensions
- 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.
- Signal
- Use of syndication technology, such as an RSS feed to notify users of content changes.
Although SLATES forms the basic framework of Enterprise 2.0, it does not conflict with all high-level Web 2.0 design patterns and business models. It includes discussions about self-service IT, the long tail of enterprise IT demand, and many other consequences of the Web 2.0 era in enterprise usage.
Usage
The third important part of Web 2.0 is the social web. The social Web is made up of a number of online tools and platforms where people share their perspectives, opinions, thoughts, and experiences. Web 2.0 applications tend to interact more with end users. Thus, end users are not only app users but also participants by:
- Podcasting
- Blogging
- Tagging
- Curating with RSS
- Social bookmark
- Social networks
- Social media
- Wiki
- Web content selector
The popularity of Web 2.0 terms, along with the increasing use of blogs, wikis, and social networking technologies, has led many academics and businesses to add 2.0 confusion to existing concepts and areas of study including Library 2.0, Social Work 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, PR 2.0, Class 2.0, Publishing 2.0, Drug 2.0, Telco 2.0, Travel 2.0, Government 2.0, and even Porn 2.0. Many of these 2.0 refers to Web 2.0 technology as the source of new versions in their respective fields and fields. For example, on the white paper Talis "Library 2.0: The Disturbing Innovation Challenge", Paul Miller argues
Blogs, wikis, and RSS are often displayed as exemplary manifestations of Web 2.0. The blog or wiki reader is provided with tools to add comments or even, in the case of wikis, to edit content. This is what we call the web Read/Write. Talis believes that Library 2.0 means taking advantage of this type of participation so that libraries can benefit from an increasingly rich collaborative cataloging effort, such as incorporating contributions from partner libraries and adding rich enhancements, such as book coats or movie files, to recordings from publishers and others.
Here, Miller connects Web 2.0 technology and the culture of participation they bring to the field of library science, supporting his claim that there is now "Library 2.0". Many other supporters of the new 2.0s mentioned here use similar methods. The meaning of Web 2.0 depends on the role. For example, some people use Web 2.0 to build and maintain relationships through social networks, while some marketing managers may use this promising technology for "traditionally unresponsive, end-to-end IT departments." There is a debate about the use of Web 2.0 technology in mainstream education. The issues considered include understanding different student learning modes; conflict between ideas embedded in the informal on-line community and the educational institution's view of the production and authentication of 'formal' knowledge; and questions about privacy, plagiarism, sharing of authorship and possession of knowledge and information produced and/or published online.
Marketing
Web 2.0 is used by corporations, nonprofit organizations and governments for interactive marketing. More and more marketers are using Web 2.0 tools to collaborate with consumers in product development, improving customer service, upgrading or promoting products or services. Companies can use Web 2.0 tools to improve collaboration with business partners and their customers. 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 Web 2.0 marketing lure is to make sure consumers can use online communities to network among themselves on a topic of their own choosing. The use of mainstream Web 2.0 media is increasing. Connecting media hubs - such as The New York Times, PC Magazine and Business Week - with links to new websites and popular services, it's important to reach the mass adoption threshold of the service the. User's web content can be used to measure consumer satisfaction. In a recent article for Technology News Bank, Shane Kite explains how Citigroup's Global Transaction Services unit monitors social media outlets to address customer problems and improve products. According to Google Timeline, the term Web 2.0 was discussed and indexed most frequently in 2005, 2007 and 2008. The average usage continues to decline by 2-4% per quarter since April 2008.
Destination Marketing
In the tourism industry, social media is an effective channel for attracting tourists and promoting tourism products and services by engaging customers. Brand travel destinations can be built through marketing campaigns in social media by engaging customers. For example, the "Snow at First Sight" campaign launched by the State of Colorado aimed at Colorado brand awareness as a winter destination. The campaign uses social media platforms, for example, Facebook and Twitter, to promote the competition, and ask participants to share experiences, images and videos on social media. As a result, Colorado enhances the image of winter aims and a campaign value of about $ 2.9 million.
Tourism organizations can earn brand royalties from interactive marketing campaigns in social media by involving passive communication tactics. For example, Walt Disney World's "Moms" adviser is responsible for offering advice and answering answers about family trips at Walt Disney World. Due to the characteristics of experts at Disney, "Moms" was chosen to represent the campaign. Social networks like Facebook can be used as a platform to provide detailed information about marketing campaigns, as well as real-time online communications with customers. Korean Airline Tour establishes and maintains customer relationships using Facebook for individual communication purposes.
Travel 2.0 refers to a Web 2.0 model in the tourism industry that provides the virtual travel community. The Travel 2.0 model allows users to create their own content and exchange their words through global interactive features on the website. Users can also contribute their experiences, images and suggestions about their travels in the online travel community. For example, TripAdvisor is an online travel community that allows users to rate and share their reviews and feedback autonomously about hotels and tourist destinations. Nonprofit users can interact socially and discuss through discussion forums in Tripadvior. Social media, especially the Travel 2.0 website, plays an important role in travelers' decision-making behavior. User-generated content on social media tools has a significant impact on travelers' preferences and preferences. The 2.0 trip appears a radical shift in accepting tourist information methods from business-to-customer marketing to peer-to-peer reviews. User-generated content becomes an important tool to help a number of travelers organize their international trips for a first time visit. Travelers tend to trust and rely on peer-to-peer reviews and virtual communication in social media rather than information provided by travel suppliers. In addition, autonomous review features in social media will help travelers reduce risk and uncertainty before buying the stage. Social media is also a conduit for customer complaints and negative feedback that can damage organizational images and goals. For example, most UK travelers read customer reviews before booking hotels and hotel reservations that receive negative feedback will be rejected by half the customers. Therefore, organizations should develop strategic plans to address and manage negative feedback on social media. While user-generated content and ranking systems in social media are beyond the control of the business, businesses can monitor the conversation and participate in the community to improve customer loyalty and maintain customer relationships.
Education
Web 2.0 can enable more collaborative education. For example, blogs give students public space to interact with each other and the content of the class. Some research indicates that Web 2.0 can improve people's understanding of science, which can improve government policy decisions. A 2012 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison notes that "... the internet can be an important tool in increasing the level of public science literacy in general.These improvements can then lead to better communication between researchers and society, more discussion substantive, and more appropriate policy decisions. "
Web-based apps and desktop
Ajax has encouraged the development of Web sites that mimic desktop applications, such as word processing, spreadsheets, and slide-show presentations. WYSIWYG wiki and blogging sites replicate many features of PC authoring apps. Some browser-based services have emerged, including EyeOS and YouOS. (No longer active.) Although named operating system, many of these services are application platforms. They mimic the user experience of desktop operating systems, offering features and applications similar to PC environments, and can run inside any modern browser. However, these so-called "operating systems" do not directly control the hardware on client computers. Many web-based application services emerged during the 1997-2001 dot-com bubble and then disappeared, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers.
Media distribution
XML and RSS
Many consider syndication of site content as a Web 2.0 feature. Syndication uses standard protocols to allow end users to use site data in other contexts (such as other websites, browser plugins, or separate desktop applications). The protocol allows syndication including RSS (a very simple syndication, also known as Web syndication), RDF (as in RSS 1.1), and Atom, all of which are XML-based formats. Observers began to refer to this technology as a Web feed. Special protocols such as FOAF and XFN (both for social networking) extend site functionality and allow end users to interact without a centralized Web site.
Web API
Web 2.0 often uses machine-based interactions like REST and SOAP. Servers often expose the Application programming interface (API), but standard APIs (for example, to post to blogs or notify blog updates) are also beginning to be used. Most communication through the API involves an XML or JSON charge. REST API, through the use of self-descriptive messages and hypermedia as the application's state machine, should describe itself once the URI entry is known. Web Service Description Language (WSDL) is the standard way to publish the SOAP Application programming interface and there are various Web service specifications.
Criticism
Critics of the term claim that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of the World Wide Web at all, but just continue to use the so-called "Web 1.0" technology and concepts. First, techniques like Ajax do not replace the underlying protocols like HTTP, but add an additional abstraction layer on top of them. Secondly, many ideas from Web 2.0 have been featured in implementations on remote network systems before the term "Web 2.0" emerged. Amazon.com, for example, has allowed users to write consumer reviews and guides since its launch in 1995, in its own publishing form. Amazon also opened APIs for outside developers in 2002. Previous developments have also come from research in computer-supported collaborative learning and computer-supported luggage work (CSCW) and from established products such as Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino, all phenomena that precede Web 2.0. Tim Berners-Lee, who developed the Web's early technology, has become an overt critic of the term, while supporting many of the elements associated with it. In the environment where the Web originates, each workstation has a dedicated IP address and an always-on connection to the Internet. Sharing files or publishing web pages is as easy as moving files to shared folders.
Perhaps the most common criticism is that the term is not clear or just a keyword. For many people working in software, version numbers like 2.0 and 3.0 are for software versions or hardware versions only, and for arbitrarily assigning 2.0 to many technologies with different real-world versions 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:
"No one really knows what it means... If Web 2.0 for you is a blog and a wiki, then it is people to people but that is what the Web should be all along... Web 2.0, for some, it means moving some of the client's side of thinking, making it faster, but the idea of ​​the Web as an interaction between people is really what the Web is.That's what it's designed to be... a collaborative space where people can interact. "
Other critics call Web 2.0 the "second bubble" (referring to the Dot-com bubble 1997-2000), indicating that too many Web 2.0 companies are trying to develop the same product with the lack of a business model. For example, The Economist has dubbed the mid to late 2000s focus on Web companies as "Bubble 2.0".
In terms of the social impact of Web 2.0, critics like Andrew Keen argue that Web 2.0 has created a cult of digital narcissism and amateurism, which undermines ideas of expertise by allowing anyone, anywhere to share and place undue value on their own. on any subject and post any type of content, regardless of actual talent, knowledge, credentials, biases or hidden agenda. 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 misdirected. Additionally, the Sunday Times reviewer John Flintoff has characterized Web 2.0 as "creating a mediocre endless digital forest: incomplete political commentary, inappropriate home video, amateurish embarrassing music, poetry the unreadable, the essay and the novel... [and that Wikipedia is full of mistakes, half truths and misunderstandings ". In a 1994 interview Wired Steve Jobs predicted the future of the web for personal publishing, saying "The Web is great because that person can not fake anything with you - you have to get it" They can make themselves available , but if nobody wants to see their site, that's fine. To be honest, most people who have something to say are publicized now. "Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association has been vocal about his opposition to Web 2.0 due to a lack of externally expressed expertise, though he believes there is hope for the future.
"The task ahead of us is to expand into the digital world virtues of authenticity, skill, and scientific apparatus that have evolved over the past 500 years of printing, virtue is often absent in the age of manuscripts that precede print."
There is also a growing number of criticisms of Web 2.0 from a political economy perspective. Because, as Tim O'Reilly and John Batelle say, Web 2.0 is based on "customers... building your business for you," critics argue that sites like Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are exploiting "free resources" of content that created user. Website 2.0 uses the Terms of Service agreement to claim perpetual licenses for user-generated content, and they use that content to create user profiles for sale to marketers. This is part of improved user activity monitoring that occurs within Web 2.0 sites. Jonathan Zittrain of the Berkman Harvard Center for the Internet and the Society believes that the data can be used by governments who want to monitor disagreeing citizens. The advent of the AJAX-driven website where much of the content should be given to the client means that older hardware users are given a worse performance than a pure site made up of HTML, where processing takes place on the server. Accessibility for disabled or disturbed users can also suffer on Web 2.0 sites.
Others have noted that Web 2.0 technology is associated with a particular political ideology. "The Web 2.0 discourse is a channel for materializing neoliberal ideologies." Web 2.0 technology may also "serve as disciplinary technology within the framework of neo-liberal political economy."
Trademark
In November 2004, CMP Media applied to the USPTO for service marks on the use of the term "WEB 2.0" for live events. On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a stop-and-stop request to the Irish non-profit IT @ Cork organization on May 24, 2006, but withdrew it two days later. The "service" WEB 2.0 "registration passed the last PTO Examining Attorney examination on May 10, 2006, and was registered on June 27, 2006. The EU application (which will provide unambiguous status in Ireland) was rejected on May 23, 2007.
See also
References
External links
- Learning materials related to Web 2.0 on Wikiversity
- Web 2.0/Social Media/Social Network . Charleston, South Carolina, SUA: MultiMedia. 2017. ISBNÃ, 1-544-63831-0.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments