banner



Home  ›  What Is Web Content That Is Created And Updated By Many Users For Many Users

What Is Web Content That Is Created And Updated By Many Users For Many Users

Written By Friday, March 11, 2022 Add Comment Edit

World wide web sites that apply technology beyond the static pages of earlier Web sites

A tag cloud (a typical Web two.0 phenomenon in itself) presenting Web 2.0 themes

Spider web ii.0 (as well known as participative (or participatory)[1] web and social web) [2] refers to websites that emphasize user-generated content, ease of use, participatory civilization and interoperability (i.east., compatibility with other products, systems, and devices) for cease users.

The term was coined by Darcy DiNucci in 1999[3] and afterwards popularized by Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty at the first O'Reilly Media Spider web two.0 Conference in late 2004.[4] [5] [6] Although the term mimics the numbering of software versions, it does not denote a formal change in the nature of the Www, simply simply describes a general alter that occurred during this period as interactive websites proliferated and came to overshadow the older, more static websites of the original Web.[7]

A Web two.0 website allows users to interact and interact with each other through social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community. This contrasts the first generation of Web 1.0-era websites where people were limited to viewing content in a passive manner. Examples of Web 2.0 features include social networking sites or social media sites (due east.g., Facebook), blogs, wikis, folksonomies ("tagging" keywords on websites and links), video sharing sites (east.g., YouTube), prototype sharing sites (e.chiliad., Flickr), hosted services, Spider web applications ("apps"), collaborative consumption platforms, and mashup applications.

Whether Spider web two.0 is substantially different from prior Web technologies has been challenged past World wide web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who describes the term equally jargon.[8] His original vision of the Web was "a collaborative medium, a place where we [could] all meet and read and write".[9] [x] On the other manus, the term Semantic Web (sometimes referred to equally Web three.0)[11] was coined by Berners-Lee to refer to a spider web of content where the significant can be processed by machines.[12]

History [edit]

Web 1.0 [edit]

Spider web ane.0 is a retronym referring to the first stage of the Www's evolution, from roughly 1991 to 2004. According to Graham Cormode and Balachander Krishnamurthy, "content creators were few in Spider web 1.0 with the vast majority of users only acting every bit consumers of content".[thirteen] Personal web pages were common, consisting mainly of static pages hosted on ISP-run web servers, or on free web hosting services such every bit Tripod and the now-defunct GeoCities.[fourteen] [xv] With Web 2.0, it became common for average web users to have social-networking profiles (on sites such as Myspace and Facebook) and personal blogs (sites like Blogger, Tumblr and LiveJournal) through either a depression-cost web hosting service or through a defended host. In full general, content was generated dynamically, allowing readers to annotate directly on pages in a way that was not common previously.[ citation needed ]

Some Web ii.0 capabilities were present in the days of Spider web i.0, simply were implemented differently. For example, a Web 1.0 site may take had a guestbook page for visitor comments, instead of a annotate department at the end of each page (typical of Web 2.0). During Web 1.0, server functioning and bandwidth had to exist considered—lengthy comment threads on multiple pages could potentially irksome down an unabridged site. Terry Flew, in his 3rd edition of New Media, described the differences between Web 1.0 and Web two.0 every bit a

"motility from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from publishing to participation, from web content every bit the outcome of large upwards-front investment to an ongoing and interactive process, and from content management systems to links based on "tagging" website content using keywords (folksonomy)."

Flew believed these factors formed the trends that resulted in the onset of the Web 2.0 "craze".[16]

Characteristics [edit]

Some common pattern elements of a Web 1.0 site include:[17]

  • Static pages rather than dynamic HTML.[18]
  • Content provided from the server's filesystem rather than a relational database direction system (RDBMS).
  • Pages built using Server Side Includes or Common Gateway Interface (CGI) instead of a web application written in a dynamic programming language such every bit Perl, PHP, Python or Crimson.[ clarification needed ]
  • The utilize of HTML iii.2-era elements such equally frames and tables to position and marshal elements on a page. These were oftentimes used in combination with spacer GIFs.[ commendation needed ]
  • Proprietary HTML extensions, such as the <blink> and <marquee> tags, introduced during the first browser state of war.
  • Online guestbooks.
  • GIF buttons, graphics (typically 88×31 pixels in size) promoting web browsers, operating systems, text editors and diverse other products.
  • HTML forms sent via e-mail. Support for server side scripting was rare on shared servers during this period. To provide a feedback mechanism for web site visitors, mailto forms were used. A user would fill in a form, and upon clicking the course's submit button, their e-mail customer would launch and endeavor to send an email containing the form's details. The popularity and complications of the mailto protocol led browser developers to incorporate email clients into their browsers.[19]

Web 2.0 [edit]

The term "Web ii.0" was coined past Darcy DiNucci, an information architecture consultant, in her January 1999 commodity "Fragmented Future":[3]

The Web nosotros know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls, is only an embryo of the Web to come up. The outset glimmerings of Web ii.0 are starting time to appear, and we are but starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your reckoner screen, [...] on your TV gear up [...] your car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven.

Writing when Palm Inc. introduced its kickoff web-capable personal digital banana (supporting Web access with WAP), DiNucci saw the Spider web "fragmenting" into a time to come that extended across the browser/PC combination it was identified with. She focused on how the basic information structure and hyper-linking mechanism introduced by HTTP would be used by a variety of devices and platforms. As such, her "2.0" designation refers to the next version of the Web that does not directly relate to the term'southward electric current utilize.

The term Web 2.0 did non resurface until 2002.[twenty] [21] [22] Kinsley and Eric focus on the concepts currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a universal, standards-based integration platform".[22] In 2004, the term began to popularize when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 briefing. In their opening remarks, John Battelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Spider web as Platform", where software applications are congenital upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. The unique attribute of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business organization for yous".[23] They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the class of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could exist "harnessed" to create value. O'Reilly and Battelle contrasted Web 2.0 with what they called "Web one.0". They associated this term with the business models of Netscape and the Encyclopædia Britannica Online. For example,

Netscape framed "the spider web as platform" in terms of the sometime software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a marketplace for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless wagon" framed the auto as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would buy Netscape servers.[24]

In short, Netscape focused on creating software, releasing updates and problems fixes, and distributing it to the end users. O'Reilly assorted this with Google, a visitor that did not, at the time, focus on producing cease-user software, but instead on providing a service based on data, such as the links that Web folio authors make between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer Spider web searches based on reputation through its "PageRank" algorithm. Unlike software, which undergoes scheduled releases, such services are constantly updated, a procedure called "the perpetual beta". A similar divergence can exist seen between the Encyclopædia Britannica Online and Wikipedia – while the Britannica relies upon experts to write articles and release them periodically in publications, Wikipedia relies on trust in (sometimes anonymous) community members to constantly write and edit content. Wikipedia editors are non required to take educational credentials, such as degrees, in the subjects in which they are editing. Wikipedia is non based on subject area-thing expertise, but rather on an adaptation of the open source software adage "given plenty eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". This proverb is stating that if enough users are able to look at a software product's code (or a website), and then these users will be able to fix any "bugs" or other problems. The Wikipedia volunteer editor customs produces, edits, and updates articles constantly. O'Reilly'south Spider web 2.0 conferences take been held every year since 2004, attracting entrepreneurs, representatives from large companies, tech experts and technology reporters.

The popularity of Web two.0 was acknowledged by 2006 Fourth dimension magazine Person of The Year (You).[25] That is, TIME selected the masses of users who were participating in content creation on social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites.

In the embrace story, Lev Grossman explains:

Information technology'due south a story nearly community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the 1000000-channel people'southward network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It'south about the many wresting power from the few and helping 1 another for nothing and how that volition not only change the earth only also change the way the world changes.

Characteristics [edit]

Instead of simply reading a Web 2.0 site, a user is invited to contribute to the site'due south content past commenting on published articles, or creating a user account or contour on the site, which may enable increased participation. By increasing emphasis on these already-extant capabilities, they encourage users to rely more than on their browser for user interface, awarding software ("apps") and file storage facilities. This has been chosen "network equally platform" computing.[v] Major features of Web 2.0 include social networking websites, self-publishing platforms (e.yard., WordPress' easy-to-use blog and website creation tools), "tagging" (which enables users to characterization websites, videos or photos in some fashion), "similar" buttons (which enable a user to indicate that they are pleased by online content), and social bookmarking.

Users can provide the data and practice some command over what they share on a Spider web 2.0 site.[5] [26] These sites may take an "architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.[four] [v] Users tin add value in many ways, such as uploading their ain content on blogs, consumer-evaluation platforms (e.g. Amazon and eBay), news websites (due east.1000. responding in the annotate section), social networking services, media-sharing websites (eastward.one thousand. YouTube and Instagram) and collaborative-writing projects.[27] Some scholars argue that cloud computing is an instance of Web ii.0 because it is simply an implication of calculating on the Net.[28]

Edit box interface through which anyone could edit a Wikipedia article.

Web 2.0 offers almost all users the same liberty to contribute.[29] While this opens the possibility for serious debate and collaboration, information technology besides increases the incidence of "spamming", "trolling", and tin can even create a venue for racist hate oral communication, cyberbullying, and defamation. The impossibility of excluding group members who practise not contribute to the provision of appurtenances (i.e., to the creation of a user-generated website) from sharing the benefits (of using the website) gives rise to the possibility that serious members will adopt to withhold their contribution of attempt and "free ride" on the contributions of others.[30] This requires what is sometimes chosen radical trust by the management of the Web site.

According to Best,[31] the characteristics of Web two.0 are rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, Web standards, and scalability. Farther characteristics, such as openness, freedom,[32] and commonage intelligence[33] by manner of user participation, tin can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0. Some websites require users to contribute user-generated content to accept access to the website, to discourage "free riding".

A listing of ways that people tin can volunteer to amend Mass Upshot Wiki, an example of content generated by users working collaboratively.

The key features of Web 2.0 include:[ citation needed ]

  1. Folksonomy – complimentary classification of information; allows users to collectively classify and find information (east.chiliad. "tagging" of websites, images, videos or links)
  2. Rich user experience – dynamic content that is responsive to user input (e.g., a user tin "click" on an image to enlarge it or discover out more information)
  3. User participation – information flows two ways between the site owner and site users past means of evaluation, review, and online commenting. Site users also typically create user-generated content for others to run into (e.g., Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that anyone can write articles for or edit)
  4. Software as a service (SaaS) – Web 2.0 sites adult APIs to allow automated usage, such as past a Web "app" (software application) or a mashup
  5. Mass participation – near-universal web access leads to differentiation of concerns, from the traditional Cyberspace user base (who tended to be hackers and calculator hobbyists) to a wider diverseness of users

Technologies [edit]

The client-side (Web browser) technologies used in Web ii.0 development include Ajax and JavaScript frameworks. Ajax programming uses JavaScript and the Document Object Model (DOM) to update selected regions of the page surface area without undergoing a full page reload. To allow users to go along interacting with the page, communications such every bit data requests going to the server are separated from data coming back to the folio (asynchronously).

Otherwise, the user would have to routinely wait for the data to come back before they tin do anything else on that page, just as a user has to wait for a page to consummate the reload. This also increases the overall operation of the site, as the sending of requests can consummate quicker contained of blocking and queueing required to send information dorsum to the client. The data fetched by an Ajax request is typically formatted in XML or JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format, two widely used structured data formats. Since both of these formats are natively understood by JavaScript, a developer tin hands employ them to transmit structured data in their Spider web awarding.

When this data is received via Ajax, the JavaScript program then uses the Document Object Model to dynamically update the Web page based on the new data, assuasive for rapid and interactive user feel. In brusque, using these techniques, spider web designers tin can brand their pages function similar desktop applications. For example, Google Docs uses this technique to create a Spider web-based word processor.

As a widely available plug-in independent of W3C standards (the World wide web Consortium is the governing torso of Web standards and protocols), Adobe Flash was capable of doing many things that were not possible pre-HTML5. Of Wink's many capabilities, the well-nigh ordinarily used was its ability to integrate streaming multimedia into HTML pages. With the introduction of HTML5 in 2010 and the growing concerns with Flash's security, the role of Wink became obsolete, with browser back up ending on December 31, 2020.

In addition to Flash and Ajax, JavaScript/Ajax frameworks have recently become a very popular ways of creating Web 2.0 sites. At their core, these frameworks use the same technology every bit JavaScript, Ajax, and the DOM. However, frameworks smooth over inconsistencies between Web browsers and extend the functionality available to developers. Many of them also come with customizable, prefabricated 'widgets' that accomplish such common tasks as picking a date from a calendar, displaying a data chart, or making a tabbed panel.

On the server-side, Web two.0 uses many of the same technologies every bit Web 1.0. Languages such as Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, every bit well as Enterprise Coffee (J2EE) and Microsoft.NET Framework, are used by developers to output data dynamically using information from files and databases. This allows websites and web services to share machine readable formats such every bit XML (Cantlet, RSS, etc.) and JSON. When information is available in i of these formats, another website can use it to integrate a portion of that site's functionality.

Concepts [edit]

Web ii.0 tin can be described in iii parts:

  • Rich web awarding — defines the experience brought from desktop to browser, whether it is "rich" from a graphical point of view or a usability/interactivity or features point of view.[ contradictory ]
  • Web-oriented architecture (WOA) — defines how Spider web 2.0 applications expose their functionality so that other applications tin leverage and integrate the functionality providing a set up of much richer applications. Examples are feeds, RSS feeds, web services, mashups.
  • Social Spider web — defines how Web 2.0 websites tend to interact much more with the end user and make the end user an integral function of the website, either by calculation his or her profile, adding comments on content, uploading new content, or adding user-generated content (e.one thousand., personal digital photos).

Every bit such, Spider web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client- and server-side software, content syndication and the use of network protocols. Standards-oriented Web browsers may use plug-ins and software extensions to handle the content and user interactions. Web 2.0 sites provide users with information storage, cosmos, and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment known as "Web 1.0".

Web ii.0 sites include the following features and techniques, referred to equally the acronym SLATES past Andrew McAfee:[34]

Due southearch
Finding information through keyword search.
Links to other websites
Connects information sources together using the model of the Web.
Authoring
The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many authors. Wiki users may extend, undo, redo and edit each other'south work. Annotate systems allow readers to contribute their viewpoints.
Tags
Categorization of content by users adding "tags" — short, ordinarily 1-word or two-word descriptions — to facilitate searching. For example, a user can tag a metal song as "death metallic". Collections of tags created by many users within a unmarried system may exist referred to as "folksonomies" (i.eastward., folk taxonomies).
Extensions
Software that makes the Spider web an awarding platform too equally a document server. Examples include Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, ActiveX, Oracle Java, QuickTime, WPS Function and Windows Media.
Signals
The use of syndication engineering science, such as RSS feeds to notify users of content changes.

While SLATES forms the bones framework of Enterprise ii.0, it does non contradict all of the higher level Spider web 2.0 pattern patterns and business models. Information technology includes discussions of self-service IT, the long tail of enterprise Information technology demand, and many other consequences of the Web 2.0 era in enterprise uses.[35]

[edit]

A third of import part of Web two.0 is the social web. The social Spider web consists of a number of online tools and platforms where people share their perspectives, opinions, thoughts and experiences. Spider web 2.0 applications tend to interact much more with the end user. As such, the stop user is not simply a user of the application merely also a participant past:

  • Podcasting
  • Blogging
  • Tagging
  • Curating with RSS
  • Social bookmarking
  • Social networking
  • Social media
  • Wikis
  • Web content voting: Review site or Rating site

The popularity of the term Web 2.0, forth with the increasing apply of blogs, wikis, and social networking technologies, has led many in academia and concern to suspend a flurry of 2.0'due south to existing concepts and fields of report,[36] including Library 2.0, Social Piece of work 2.0,[37] Enterprise 2.0, PR 2.0,[38] Classroom 2.0,[39] Publishing 2.0,[40] Medicine two.0,[41] Telco 2.0, Travel 2.0, Government two.0,[42] and even Porn ii.0.[43] Many of these 2.0s refer to Web ii.0 technologies as the source of the new version in their respective disciplines and areas. For case, in the Talis white paper "Library two.0: The Claiming of Disruptive Innovation", Paul Miller argues

Blogs, wikis and RSS are often held upwards as exemplary manifestations of Web 2.0. A reader of a web log or a wiki is provided with tools to add a annotate or even, in the case of the wiki, to edit the content. This is what we call the Read/Write web. Talis believes that Library 2.0 means harnessing this type of participation so that libraries can benefit from increasingly rich collaborative cataloging efforts, such as including contributions from partner libraries as well as adding rich enhancements, such as book jackets or movie files, to records from publishers and others.[44]

Here, Miller links Web ii.0 technologies and the culture of participation that they engender to the field of library science, supporting his claim that in that location is now a "Library ii.0". Many of the other proponents of new 2.0s mentioned hither use like methods. The meaning of Spider web 2.0 is office dependent. For example, some use Web two.0 to constitute and maintain relationships through social networks, while some marketing managers might use this promising technology to "end-run traditionally unresponsive I.T. section[south]."[45]

There is a debate over the use of Web ii.0 technologies in mainstream education. Issues under consideration include the understanding of students' dissimilar learning modes; the conflicts between ideas entrenched in breezy online communities and educational establishments' views on the production and authentication of 'formal' cognition; and questions about privacy, plagiarism, shared authorship and the ownership of noesis and information produced and/or published on line.[46]

Marketing [edit]

Web ii.0 is used by companies, non-profit organisations and governments for interactive marketing. A growing number of marketers are using Web two.0 tools to collaborate with consumers on product evolution, customer service enhancement, product or service improvement and promotion. Companies can utilise Spider web 2.0 tools to amend collaboration with both its business concern partners and consumers. Among other things, visitor employees take created wikis—Websites that let users to add, delete, and edit content — to list answers to frequently asked questions about each product, and consumers have added pregnant contributions.

Some other marketing Spider web 2.0 lure is to make certain consumers can use the online community to network among themselves on topics of their own choosing.[47] Mainstream media usage of Web 2.0 is increasing. Saturating media hubs—like The New York Times, PC Magazine and Business Week — with links to popular new Web sites and services, is critical to achieving the threshold for mass adoption of those services.[48] User web content can be used to approximate consumer satisfaction. In a recent article for Bank Engineering News, Shane Kite describes how Citigroup's Global Transaction Services unit monitors social media outlets to address customer problems and improve products.[49]

Destination marketing [edit]

In tourism industries, social media is an effective channel to attract travellers and promote tourism products and services past engaging with customers. The brand of tourist destinations can be congenital through marketing campaigns on social media and past engaging with customers. For case, the "Snowfall at Starting time Sight" campaign launched by the State of Colorado aimed to bring make awareness to Colorado as a winter destination. The campaign used social media platforms, for case, Facebook and Twitter, to promote this competition, and requested the participants to share experiences, pictures and videos on social media platforms. As a result, Colorado enhanced their paradigm every bit a wintertime destination and created a entrada worth about $ii.nine 1000000.[ citation needed ]

The tourism organisation can earn brand royalty from interactive marketing campaigns on social media with engaging passive communication tactics. For example, "Moms" advisors of the Walt Disney World are responsible for offering suggestions and replying to questions near the family trips at Walt Disney World. Due to its feature of expertise in Disney, "Moms" was chosen to represent the campaign.[50] Social networking sites, such equally Facebook, tin can be used equally a platform for providing detailed information almost the marketing campaign, as well as real-fourth dimension online communication with customers. Korean Airline Tour created and maintained a relationship with customers by using Facebook for individual communication purposes.[51]

Travel ii.0 refers a model of Web 2.0 on tourism industries which provides virtual travel communities. The travel 2.0 model allows users to create their own content and commutation their words through globally interactive features on websites.[52] [53] The users also can contribute their experiences, images and suggestions regarding their trips through online travel communities. For example, TripAdvisor is an online travel community which enables user to rate and share apart their reviews and feedback on hotels and tourist destinations. Non pre-acquaintance users can interact socially and communicate through discussion forums on TripAdvisor.[54]

Social media, especially Travel 2.0 websites, plays a crucial part in decision-making behaviors of travelers. The user-generated content on social media tools have a significant impact on travelers choices and system preferences. Travel 2.0 sparked radical change in receiving data methods for travelers, from business-to-customer marketing into peer-to-peer reviews. User-generated content became a vital tool for helping a number of travelers manage their international travels, especially for first time visitors.[55] The travellers tend to trust and rely on peer-to-peer reviews and virtual communications on social media rather than the information provided by travel suppliers.[54] [50]

In add-on, an autonomous review characteristic on social media would help travelers reduce risks and uncertainties before the purchasing stages.[52] [55] Social media is as well a channel for customer complaints and negative feedback which tin can harm images and reputations of organisations and destinations.[55] For case, a majority of U.k. travellers read customer reviews before booking hotels, these hotels receiving negative feedback would be refrained by half of customers.[55]

Therefore, the organisations should develop strategic plans to handle and manage the negative feedback on social media. Although the user-generated content and rating systems on social media are out of a business' controls, the business can monitor those conversations and participate in communities to heighten client loyalty and maintain customer relationships.[fifty]

Teaching [edit]

Web two.0 could let for more than collaborative education. For example, blogs give students a public space to interact with one some other and the content of the grade.[56] Some studies suggest that Web 2.0 can increase the public's understanding of scientific discipline, which could improve government policy decisions. A 2012 study past researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison notes that "...the internet could exist a crucial tool in increasing the general public's level of science literacy. This increase could then pb to meliorate communication between researchers and the public, more than substantive word, and more informed policy decision."[57]

Web-based applications and desktops [edit]

Ajax has prompted the development of Spider web sites that mimic desktop applications, such equally word processing, the spreadsheet, and slide-testify presentation. WYSIWYG wiki and blogging sites replicate many features of PC authoring applications. Several browser-based services have emerged, including EyeOS[58] and YouOS.(No longer active.)[59] Although named operating systems, many of these services are application platforms. They mimic the user experience of desktop operating systems, offering features and applications similar to a PC surround, and are able to run inside whatever modern browser. However, these then-called "operating systems" do not directly control the hardware on the customer's computer. Numerous web-based application services appeared during the dot-com bubble of 1997–2001 and and then vanished, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers.

Distribution of media [edit]

XML and RSS [edit]

Many regard syndication of site content as a Web 2.0 characteristic. Syndication uses standardized protocols to permit end-users to make employ of a site'south data in another context (such as another Web site, a browser plugin, or a separate desktop application). Protocols permitting syndication include RSS (really simple syndication, as well known as Web syndication), RDF (every bit in RSS 1.1), and Cantlet, all of which are XML-based formats. Observers accept started to refer to these technologies every bit Spider web feeds. Specialized protocols such equally FOAF and XFN (both for social networking) extend the functionality of sites and permit end-users to interact without centralized Web sites.

Spider web APIs [edit]

Spider web 2.0 often uses machine-based interactions such as REST and Soap. Servers often expose proprietary Application programming interfaces (API), but standard APIs (for case, for posting to a weblog or notifying a blog update) have also come into utilise. Virtually communications through APIs involve XML or JSON payloads. Residuum APIs, through their use of cocky-descriptive messages and hypermedia equally the engine of awarding state, should be self-describing once an entry URI is known. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) is the standard way of publishing a SOAP Application programming interface and there are a range of Spider web service specifications.

Trademark [edit]

In November 2004, CMP Media practical to the USPTO for a service mark on the apply of the term "WEB 2.0" for live events.[60] On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a cease-and-desist demand to the Irish non-turn a profit organisation IT@Cork on May 24, 2006,[61] merely retracted it ii days subsequently.[62] The "Spider web 2.0" service mark registration passed final PTO Examining Attorney review on May 10, 2006, and was registered on June 27, 2006.[sixty] The European Union awarding (which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland)[63] was declined on May 23, 2007.

Criticism [edit]

Critics of the term claim that "Web 2.0" does non represent a new version of the Www at all, just just continues to apply then-called "Web 1.0" technologies and concepts.[eight] First, techniques such equally Ajax do non replace underlying protocols like HTTP, only add together a layer of brainchild on top of them. 2d, many of the ideas of Web two.0 were already featured in implementations on networked systems well before the term "Web 2.0" emerged. Amazon.com, for case, has immune users to write reviews and consumer guides since its launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to exterior developers in 2002.[64] Previous developments as well came from research in figurer-supported collaborative learning and computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) and from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino, all phenomena that preceded Web 2.0. Tim Berners-Lee, who developed the initial technologies of the Web, has been an outspoken critic of the term, while supporting many of the elements associated with it.[65] In the environment where the Web originated, each workstation had a dedicated IP accost and always-on connexion to the Internet. Sharing a file or publishing a web folio was equally elementary equally moving the file into a shared folder.[66]

Peradventure the almost common criticism is that the term is unclear or only a buzzword. For many people who work in software, version numbers like two.0 and iii.0 are for software versioning or hardware versioning only, and to assign 2.0 arbitrarily to many technologies with a diversity of real version numbers 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 "Spider web 2.0" as a jargon:[eight]

"Nobody actually knows what it means... If Web ii.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. Just that was what the Web was supposed to be all along... Web 2.0, for some people, it means moving some of the thinking [to the] customer side, so making it more than immediate, merely the idea of the Spider web as interaction between people is really what the Spider web is. That was what it was designed to exist... a collaborative space where people tin can interact."

Other critics labeled Spider web ii.0 "a 2d bubble" (referring to the Dot-com bubble of 1997–2000), suggesting that besides many Web 2.0 companies attempt to develop the same product with a lack of concern models. For example, The Economist has dubbed the mid- to late-2000s focus on Web companies as "Chimera 2.0".[67]

In terms of Spider web two.0'southward social affect, critics such as Andrew Nifty argue that Web ii.0 has created a cult of digital narcissism and amateurism, which undermines the notion of expertise past assuasive everyone, anywhere to share and identify undue value upon their own opinions about any subject field and post any kind of content, regardless of their actual talent, cognition, credentials, biases or possible hidden agendas. Keen's 2007 volume, Cult of the Apprentice, argues that the core assumption of Web ii.0, that all opinions and user-generated content are every bit valuable and relevant, is misguided. Additionally, Lord's day Times reviewer John Flintoff has characterized Spider web 2.0 every bit "creating an endless digital wood of mediocrity: uninformed political commentary, unseemly home videos, embarrassingly amateurish music, unreadable poems, essays and novels... [and that Wikipedia is full of] mistakes, half-truths and misunderstandings".[68] In a 1994 Wired interview, Steve Jobs, forecasting the future development of the web for personal publishing, said "The Web is groovy because that person can't foist anything on you-you take to go get it. They can brand themselves available, but if nobody wants to look at their site, that'south fine. To be honest, most people who accept something to say go published now."[69] Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Clan has been vocal about his opposition to Spider web 2.0 due to the lack of expertise that information technology outwardly claims, though he believes that in that location is promise for the time to come.[70]

"The task earlier us is to extend into the digital globe the virtues of actuality, expertise, and scholarly apparatus that have evolved over the 500 years of print, virtues often absent in the manuscript age that preceded impress".

There is also a growing body of critique of Web 2.0 from the perspective of political economic system. Since, as Tim O'Reilly and John Batelle put it, Web 2.0 is based on the "customers... building your business concern for y'all,"[23] critics have argued that sites such as Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are exploiting the "costless labor"[71] of user-created content.[72] Web two.0 sites employ Terms of Service agreements to merits perpetual licenses to user-generated content, and they use that content to create profiles of users to sell to marketers.[73] This is part of increased surveillance of user action happening within Web ii.0 sites.[74] Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard's Berkman Center for the Cyberspace and Society argues that such data can be used by governments who want to monitor dissident citizens.[75] The rise of AJAX-driven web sites where much of the content must exist rendered on the customer has meant that users of older hardware are given worse performance versus a site purely equanimous of HTML, where the processing takes place on the server.[76] Accessibility for disabled or impaired users may as well suffer in a Web 2.0 site.[77]

Others accept noted that Web ii.0 technologies are tied to particular political ideologies. "Spider web 2.0 soapbox is a conduit for the materialization of neoliberal credo."[78] The technologies of Web ii.0 may as well "office as a disciplining technology within the framework of a neoliberal political economy."[79]

When looking at Web 2.0 from a cultural convergence view, co-ordinate to Henry Jenkins,[lxxx] it can exist problematic because the consumers are doing more and more than piece of work in guild to entertain themselves. For instance, Twitter offers online tools for users to create their own tweet, in a way the users are doing all the work when it comes to producing media content.

See also [edit]

  • Cloud computing
  • Collective intelligence
  • Connectivity of social media
  • Crowd calculating
  • Enterprise social software
  • Mass collaboration
  • New media
  • Office suite
  • Open source governance
  • Privacy issues of social networking sites
  • Social commerce
  • Social shopping
  • Web 2.0 for development (web2fordev)
  • Web 3.0
  • You lot (Time Person of the Year)
  • Libraries in Second Life
  • List of free software for Spider web 2.0 Services
  • Cute cat theory of digital activism
  • Web3
Application domains
  • Sci-Mate
  • Business 2.0
  • E-learning two.0
  • e-Regime (Authorities ii.0)
  • Health ii.0
  • Science 2.0

References [edit]

  1. ^ Blank, Grant; Reisdorf, Bianca (2012-05-01). "The Participatory Web". Data. fifteen (4): 537–554. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.665935. S2CID 143357345.
  2. ^ "What is Web 1.0? - Definition from Techopedia". Techopedia.com. Archived from the original on 2018-07-13. Retrieved 2018-07-thirteen .
  3. ^ a b DiNucci, Darcy (1999). "Fragmented Future" (PDF). Print. 53 (4): 32. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-11-10. Retrieved 2011-11-04 .
  4. ^ a b Graham, Paul (November 2005). "Spider web 2.0". Archived from the original on 2012-ten-10. Retrieved 2006-08-02 . I first heard the phrase 'Web 2.0' in the name of the Web ii.0 briefing in 2004.
  5. ^ a b c d O'Reilly, Tim (2005-09-30). "What Is Spider web 2.0". O'Reilly Network. Archived from the original on 2013-04-24. Retrieved 2006-08-06 .
  6. ^ Strickland, Jonathan (2007-12-28). "How Spider web two.0 Works". computer.howstuffworks.com. Archived from the original on 2015-02-17. Retrieved 2015-02-28 .
  7. ^ "What is Web 1.0? - Definition from Techopedia". Techopedia.com. Archived from the original on 2018-07-thirteen. Retrieved 2018-07-13 .
  8. ^ a b c "DeveloperWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee". 2006-07-28. Archived from the original on 2012-08-21. Retrieved 2012-08-05 .
  9. ^ "Berners-Lee on the read/write web". BBC News. 2005-08-09. Archived from the original on 2012-09-01. Retrieved 2012-08-05 .
  10. ^ Richardson, Will (2009). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms (2nd ed.). California: Corwin Printing. p. 1. ISBN978-1-4129-5972-8.
  11. ^ "What is Web three.0? Webopedia Definition". www.webopedia.com. Archived from the original on 2017-02-fifteen. Retrieved 2017-02-xv .
  12. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim; James Hendler; Ora Lassila (May 17, 2001). "The Semantic Web" (PDF). Scientific American. 410 (6832): 1023–4. Bibcode:2001SciAm.284e..34B. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0501-34. PMID 11323639. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 1, 2018. Retrieved October 1, 2018.
  13. ^ Balachander Krishnamurthy, Graham Cormode (two June 2008). "Key differences between Spider web ane.0 and Spider web 2.0". Offset Monday. 13 (half-dozen). Archived from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 23 September 2014.
  14. ^ "Geocities – Dead Media Annal". cultureandcommunication.org. Archived from the original on 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-09-23 .
  15. ^ "So Long, GeoCities: We Forgot You Yet Existed". 2009-04-23. Archived from the original on 2014-10-17. Retrieved 2014-09-23 .
  16. ^ Flew, Terry (2008). New Media: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Printing. p. 19.
  17. ^ Viswanathan, Ganesh; Dutt Mathur, Punit; Yammiyavar, Pradeep (March 2010). "From Spider web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and beyond: Reviewing usability heuristic criteria taking music sites as case studies". IndiaHCI Conference. Mumbai. Retrieved twenty February 2015.
  18. ^ "Is there a Spider web ane.0?". HowStuffWorks. January 28, 2008. Archived from the original on February 22, 2019. Retrieved February 15, 2019.
  19. ^ "The Correct Size of Software". www.catb.org. Archived from the original on 2015-06-17. Retrieved 2015-02-20 .
  20. ^ Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. RSS: INJAN (Information technology's non just about news). Web log. Blog Data Space. August 21 OpenLinkSW.com
  21. ^ Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. Jeff Bezos Comments about Web Services. Weblog. Web log Data Space. September 25. OpenLinkSW.com Archived 2010-02-12 at the Wayback Car
  22. ^ a b Knorr, Eric. 2003. The year of Spider web services. CIO, December fifteen.
  23. ^ a b O'Reilly, Tim, and John Battelle. 2004. Opening Welcome: State of the Internet Industry. In San Francisco, California, Oct 5.
  24. ^ O'Reilly, T., 2005.
  25. ^ Grossman, Lev. 2006. Person of the Year: You. December 25. Fourth dimension.com Archived 2009-09-23 at the Wayback Machine
  26. ^ Hinchcliffe, Dion (2006-04-02). "The State of Spider web two.0". Web Services. Archived from the original on 2007-05-fifteen. Retrieved 2006-08-06 .
  27. ^ Perry, Ronen; Zarsky, Tal (2015-08-01). "Who Should Be Liable for Online Bearding Defamation?". Rochester, NY. SSRN 2671399.
  28. ^ [SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=732483 Wireless Communications and Computing at a Crossroads: New Paradigms and Their Affect on Theories Governing the Public's Right to Spectrum Access], Patrick South. Ryan, Periodical on Telecommunications & Loftier Applied science Law, Vol. three, No. 2, p. 239, 2005.
  29. ^ Pal, Surendra Kumar. "Learn More than Nearly Web ii.0". academia.edu. Retrieved 2015-ten-14 .
  30. ^ Gerald Marwell and Ruth E. Ames: "Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. I. Resources, Interest, Grouping Size, and the Free-Rider Problem". The American Journal of Folklore, Vol. 84, No. 6 (May, 1979), pp. 1335–1360
  31. ^ Best, D., 2006. Spider web 2.0 Next Big Thing or Next Big Internet Bubble? Lecture Web Information Systems. Techni sche Universiteit Eindhoven.
  32. ^ Greenmeier, Larry & Gaudin, Sharon. "Amid The Rush To Spider web 2.0, Some Words Of Alarm – Spider web two.0 – InformationWeek". world wide web.informationweek.com. Archived from the original on 2008-04-21. Retrieved 2008-04-04 .
  33. ^ O'Reilly, T., 2005. What is Spider web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Side by side Generation of Software, p. 30
  34. ^ McAfee, A. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. MIT Sloan Direction review. Vol. 47, No. 3, p. 21–28.
  35. ^ Hinchcliffe, Dion (Nov 5, 2006). "Web 2.0 definition updated and Enterprise two.0 emerges". ZDNet blogs. Archived from the original on 2006-eleven-29.
  36. ^ Schick, South., 2005. I second that emotion. It Business.ca (Canada).
  37. ^ Vocalizer, Jonathan B. (2009). The Role and Regulations for Technology in Social Work Practice and East-Therapy: Social Work two.0. In A. R. Roberts (Ed) . New York, United states of americaA.: Oxford Academy Press. ISBN978-0-xix-536937-3.
  38. ^ Breakenridge, Deirdre (2008). PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences. Pearson Education. ISBN978-0-13-270397-0.
  39. ^ "Classroom 2.0". Archived from the original on 2010-09-22. Retrieved 2010-09-22 .
  40. ^ Karp, Scott. "Publishing two.0". Publishing2.com. Archived from the original on 2011-02-06. Retrieved 2011-02-06 .
  41. ^ Medicine 2.0
  42. ^ Eggers, William D. (2005). Government 2.0: Using Technology to Better Didactics, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Commonwealth. Lanham Medico, United states of americaA.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN978-0-7425-4175-vii. Archived from the original on 2009-02-17.
  43. ^ Rusak, Sergey (2009). Web 2.0 Becoming An Outdated Term. Boston, Massachusetts, United statesA.: Progressive Advertiser. Archived from the original on March 3, 2010.
  44. ^ Miller ten–xi
  45. ^ "i-Technology Viewpoint: It's Fourth dimension to Accept the Quotation Marks Off "Web 2.0" | Web 2.0 Journal". Web2.sys-con.com. Archived from the original on 2011-02-16. Retrieved 2011-02-06 .
  46. ^ Anderson, Paul (2007). "What is Spider web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for didactics". JISC Technology and Standards Watch. CiteSeerX10.1.1.108.9995.
  47. ^ Parise, Salvatore (2008-12-sixteen). "The Secrets of Marketing in a Web two.0 World". The Wall Street Periodical. Archived from the original on 2017-07-10. Retrieved 2017-08-08 .
  48. ^ MacManus, Richard (2007). "Mainstream Media Usage of Web 2.0 Services is Increasing". Read Write Web. Archived from the original on 2011-08-xi.
  49. ^ "Banks employ Spider web 2.0 to increase customer retention". PNT Marketing Services. 2010. Archived from the original on 2010-11-14. Retrieved 2010-11-xiv .
  50. ^ a b c Hudson, Simon; Thal, Karen (2013-01-01). "The Impact of Social Media on the Consumer Decision Process: Implications for Tourism Marketing". Periodical of Travel & Tourism Marketing. thirty (1–2): 156–160. doi:10.1080/10548408.2013.751276. ISSN 1054-8408. S2CID 154791353.
  51. ^ Park, Jongpil; Oh, Ick-Keun (2012-01-01). "A Case Study of Social Media Marketing by Travel Agency: The Salience of Social Media Marketing in the Tourism Manufacture". International Journal of Tourism Sciences. 12 (ane): 93–106. doi:10.1080/15980634.2012.11434654. ISSN 1598-0634. S2CID 142955027.
  52. ^ a b Buhalis, Dimitrios; Law, Rob (2008). "Progress in information engineering and tourism direction: 20 years on and ten years after the Internet—The state of eTourism inquiry" (PDF). Tourism Management. 29 (4): 609–623. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.005.
  53. ^ Milano, Roberta; Baggio, Rodolfo; Piattelli, Robert (2011-01-01). "The furnishings of online social media on tourism websites". Data and Advice Technologies in Tourism 2011. Springer, Vienna. pp. 471–483. CiteSeerXx.1.1.454.3557. doi:ten.1007/978-three-7091-0503-0_38. ISBN978-3-7091-0502-3.
  54. ^ a b Miguens, J.; Baggio, R. (2008). "Social media and Tourism Destinations: TripAdvisor Instance Study" (PDF). Advances in Tourism Enquiry: 26–28. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-08-30. Retrieved 2017-05-ten .
  55. ^ a b c d Zeng, Benxiang; Gerritsen, Rolf (2014-04-01). "What practice we know about social media in tourism? A review". Tourism Management Perspectives. ten: 27–36. doi:x.1016/j.tmp.2014.01.001.
  56. ^ Richardson, Will (2010). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Spider web Tools for Classrooms. Corwin Press. p. 171. ISBN978-1-4129-7747-0.
  57. ^ Pete Ladwig; Kajsa E. Dalrymple; Dominique Brossard; Dietram A. Scheufele; Elizabeth A. Corley (2012). "Perceived familiarity or factual noesis? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding". Scientific discipline and Public Policy. 39 (6): 761–774. doi:ten.1093/scipol/scs048.
  58. ^ "Can eyeOS Succeed Where Desktop.com Failed?". www.techcrunch.com. Archived from the original on 2007-12-12. Retrieved 2007-12-12 .
  59. ^ "Tech Crush Hey YouOS! – BusinessWeek". www.businessweek.com. Archived from the original on 2007-12-17. Retrieved 2007-12-12 .
  60. ^ a b "USPTO serial number 78322306". Tarr.uspto.gov. Archived from the original on 2011-01-thirteen. Retrieved 2011-02-06 .
  61. ^ "O'Reilly and CMP Exercise Trademark on 'Web 2.0'". Slashdot. 2006-05-26. Archived from the original on 2009-05-11. Retrieved 2006-05-27 .
  62. ^ Torkington, Nathan (2006-05-26). "O'Reilly's coverage of Web 2.0 as a service marker". O'Reilly Radar. Archived from the original on 15 January 2008. Retrieved 2006-06-01 .
  63. ^ "Awarding number 004972212". 2007. Archived from the original on 2013-05-12. Retrieved 2010-03-22 .
  64. ^ O'Reilly, Tim (2002-06-18). "Amazon Spider web Services API". O'Reilly Network. Archived from the original on 2006-06-xiii. Retrieved 2006-05-27 .
  65. ^ "Tim Berners-Lee on Spider web two.0: "nobody even knows what it means"". September 2006. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-06-fifteen . He's large on blogs and wikis, and has nothing but good things to say most AJAX, simply Berners-Lee faults the term "Web 2.0" for lacking whatsoever coherent meaning.
  66. ^ "developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee". 2006-08-22. Archived from the original on 2007-07-01. Retrieved 2007-06-04 .
  67. ^ "Chimera ii.0". The Economist. 2005-12-22. Archived from the original on 2006-11-19. Retrieved 2006-12-20 .
  68. ^ Flintoff, JohnPaul (2007-06-03). "Thinking is then over". The Times. London. Archived from the original on 2009-05-07. Retrieved 2009-06-05 .
  69. ^ Wolf, Gary. "Steve Jobs: The Next Insanely Cracking Affair". Wired. Archived from the original on 2015-04-18. Retrieved 2015-04-16 .
  70. ^ Gorman, Michael. "Web 2.0: The Slumber of Reason, Office 1". Archived from the original on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 26 April 2011.
  71. ^ Terranova, Tiziana (2000). "Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economic system". Social Text. 18 (2): 33–58. doi:10.1215/01642472-18-2_63-33. S2CID 153872482.
  72. ^ Peterson, Soren (2008). "Loser Generated Content: From Participation to Exploitation". First Mon. thirteen (3). Archived from the original on 2012-10-25. Retrieved 2012-04-28 . Taylor, Astra (2014). The People's Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age. Metropolitan Books. ISBN9780805093568.
  73. ^ Gehl, Robert (2011). "The Archive and the Processor: The Internal Logic of Spider web 2.0". New Media and Club. 13 (8): 1228–1244. doi:10.1177/1461444811401735. S2CID 38776985.
  74. ^ Andrejevic, Mark (2007). iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era. Lawrence, KS: U P of Kansas. ISBN978-0-7006-1528-5.
  75. ^ Zittrain, Jonathan. "Minds for Sale". Berkman Centre for the Internet and Society. Archived from the original on 12 November 2011. Retrieved 13 Apr 2012.
  76. ^ "Accessibility in Web 2.0 technology". Archived from the original on 2015-04-02. Retrieved 2014-09-fifteen . In the Web awarding domain, making static Web pages attainable is relatively easy. Simply for Web ii.0 engineering, dynamic content and fancy visual effects tin brand accessibility testing very difficult.
  77. ^ "Spider web 2.0 and Accessibility". Archived from the original on 24 August 2014. Web 2.0 applications or websites are often very hard to control by users with assistive technology.
  78. ^ Marwick, Alice (2010). "Status Update: Celebrity, publicity and Cocky-Branding in Web ii.0" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-06 .
  79. ^ Jarrett, Kylie (2008). "Interactivity Is Evil! A Critical Investigation of Spider web two.0" (PDF). Offset Monday. xiii (iii). doi:10.5210/fm.v13i3.2140.
  80. ^ Jenkins, Henry (2008). "Convergence Culture". The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. 14 (1): 5–12. doi:10.1177/1354856507084415 . Retrieved nineteen September 2019.

External links [edit]

  • Learning materials related to Web two.0 at Wikiversity
  • Spider web two.0 / Social Media / Social Networks. Charleston, South Carolina, SUA: MultiMedia. 2017. ISBN978-ane-544-63831-seven.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

Posted by: papeberne2001.blogspot.com

0 Response to "What Is Web Content That Is Created And Updated By Many Users For Many Users"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel