Web 2.0: What's in a Name?

I've had the pleasure of chatting recently with Doc Searls. I say pleasure because I every time I talk with Doc, it seems that  learn something new. In this case, I learned that I'm not the only one who does not like the name "Web 2.0" that we are using for a new generation of interactive, decentralized web-based services that promise to make the internet better for the users, if not for large companies.

We both think that Web 2.0 sounds way too much like a product upgrade, when in fact what is happening is more fundamental and much larger than a feature-enhancement.

I remember back in 2003 that I tried hard to avoid saying "blog" and "blogosphere."  Both words seemed to me to be a bit comic book in their qualities.  But by then it was too late.  The two words waddled, had feathers and quacked.  They were going to be called what they were being called.

Is it already too late to rename "Web 2.0?"  Are Dc and I are the only ones still resistant to the term, which had been argued with some passion several months back? Is resistance futile?

If you have an idea for a better name, please leave it here as a comment.  If I like your name better than Web 2.0, I'll argue the case and see what happens. maybe Doc will as well--but I'm in no position to speak for him.

Comments

[Big D]

No comment, just a thought on words. A instructor and I were going through the vast english language to find a word that describes a technology-aholic like a crack adict for information. Any thoughts! Big D

[Alan Gutierrez]

I don't think it's the label that grates so much as the vastness of the definition of Web 2.0, and the pointless conversations about what it really means. Is it Ajax? Is it syndication? Is tagging manditory?

It keeps people busy in their blogs. There are a lot of echos.

What I think happens to a buzz word like Web 2.0 is that it becomes an umberella term. People find analogies and names for the component parts of the concept and the blanket term is not so silly anymore.

I feel that an important part of Web 2.0 is what Microsoft once called the "Inductive User Interface". A user interface that explains itself, is task oriented, mixes widgetry with documentation. The Web 2.0 concepts all strike me as being much more mature that people make them out to be.

As a programmer, terms like Ajax and Web 2.0 grate on me. As a representitive, it is nice to have buzzwords to get a customer moving in a forward direction, away from 1996 web design.

You don't want Flash, you want Ajax! It's newer and better. Google it. See?

I've not said that quite yet, but don't think I wouldn't. Moving people toward content based sites and blogging is a real challenge and these simple concepts help enormously.

Hey, it comes down to this:

We might not know what Web 2.0 is exactly, but we know what Web 1.0 is, and we know we need to do it one better.

[B]

What about "Creative user paradigm"?

[Marti]

"...interactive, decentralized web-based services" = inDweb or indie web

(All the big boys frown at the intrusion of this silly non-techie girl, then return to their previous conversations LOL)

Just wanted to pop in and wish you a Happy St. Patrick's Day, Shel!

[Tim]

from a student's eyes:
Web 1.0 is tied to .com, hordes of sites with no real value.

then there was natural filter, and what's left had value, and is generalized as Web 2.0, so my suggestions is:

.value

[Sid Steward]

I recall a line I heard in the eBook days: "a good book disappears in your hands." I think that's true for web services, too. To the end user, the implementation should be a non-issue. In which case, what is there to name? But that day is far away.

Here are some name ideas that riff on Tim's idea. They highlight the community aspect of, um, that-which-is-known-as-web-2.0.

This one's a little long, but delivers the idea:
you.friends.community.web

It could be shortened to:
you.web

or:
you@home.web

FWIW- Sid

[Tim]

good one sid :) what about even shorter?

.web

the internet as it is today is more of a 'web' than ever, connecting every corner and discovering new terrines everyday. each knots strengthens as it becomes more valueable to others.

and what happens to the loose knots in the web? less valuable things will slip through and eventually fade away.

[Jack Krupansky]

My conclusion is that we might as well leave the term Web 2.0 as-is since it basically works.

Sure, there are scope and definition issues, but any replacement term is likely to be even worse.

What does Web 2.0 "mean"? Simply the collection of leading-edge advances beyond the "original" web.

And, some day, we'll have Web 3.0, which will simply be all the new stuff that is a leap beyond all the current "new" stuff.

One important benefit of the term Web 2.0 is that it lets us talk about "blogging" without using the hideous term "blog". That seems like a very positive benefit, to me.

-- Jack Krupansky

[Shel Israel]

How would you feel about:

"The Peoples Web"

[Tim]

Finally comes Shel's verdict :)

following Jack, perhaps the task at hand is not to necessarily 'rename' Web 2.0, instead, tagging it with something more human, more english.. less machine.

good point for bringing out Web 3.0. How would they, from the next generation perceive the current technology? what's the symbol?

I looked around and if there's something visually memorable, it will have to be the little "beta" beside 'bubbleshare', and 'gmail', and 'flickr', and ...

what does beta mean? a subtle commitment to user satisfaction maybe?

.beta

[Martin]

We've turned things around, so why not call it BEW :-)

[Shel Israel]

Does anyone like, "The Web Marketplace?"

[Mark Kuznicki]

I like the idea that Web 2.0 technologies, social values and economic relationships bring people together to exchange value or ideas, and that the technology tries its best to get out of the way of their interaction. The "Social Web"?

Or maybe it's an era. 2.0 rose out of the ashes of 1.0. The tech bubble burst on March 10, 2000 with expectations that Microsoft would be declared a monopoly and broken up in US vs Microsoft. In Web 2.0, there are no monopolies and I don't expect we'll see any. Post-Microsoft Web? Post-Monopolist Web? Post-Bubble Web? Nah, Web 2.0 is better.

It's a balanced, sustainable ecosystem of small inter-linked user-centric services. The "Web Service Ecosystem"?

[Sid Steward]

Here's a useful bit of perspective. I met with an old friend this weekend, a San Francisco professional. He hadn't even heard of Firefox, let alone "Web 2.0". The takeaway: there is time to change what it is called, and by then it might be something different.

I like the subtractive definitions of Web 2.0 emerging here.

I'm afraid "The Peoples Web" and "The Web Marketplace" aren't compelling enough to replace "Web 2.0". ... Maybe "Web 2.0" is good because it suggests but doesn't define. One's first thought is "what is that?" It fuels conversation.

Another $0.02: "Woven Web" suggests maturity and interactivity: it's not about the strands anymore, this is 500 thread-count fabric!

[Shel Israel]

What do people think of "The Woven Web?"

[meryl]

Why does it need a name? It's simple... the Web is changing and becoming more interactive. It's called progress.

[Sid Steward]

It looks like "Web 2.0" has a Microsoft-backed contender: "Live Software":

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/03/onstage_with_bill_g_at_mix_06_1.html

"Live Web" appeals to me more than "Live Software," but then MS is a software company after all.

Any hands for "Live Web"?

[Graham English]

How about renaming Web 2.0 "The Integral Internet"? Using Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, it makes sense to me that Web 2.0 is actually a democratic 1st tier technology that allows for multiple perspectives--which is a 2nd tier, or integral, trait.

Because what really needs to change is not the technology so much as the consciousness using it.

My other thought is that any kind of Web 3.0 would again not be so much of a technological advancement as an accessability to technology.

[Michiel]

"We both think that Web 2.0 sounds way too much like a product upgrade, when in fact what is happening is more fundamental and much larger than a feature-enhancement."

Nope, natural evolution of technology. No 'fundamental' earthshaking new things going on. Really.

Web 1.1, if that. But its WAY too late in the game to stop it. We're stuck with web 2.0, and our children's children will laugh at our hubris and naiveté.

[quine]

Web2.0 apps are still running on the internet. The name of the platform hasn't changed. Or shouldn't change. In my mind, users are just creating next gen apps. Video games have always progressed and changed the way that people play but they have never stopped being called video games. We are still using an international computer network to run new technology on.

[Till Westermayer]

I tag it as "social software", usually. But "social web" and "the people's web" sound good, too; maybe a little bit to much like people's republic and social(istic) propaganda ...

[Sid Steward]

Here's another data point that suggests "Web 2.0" is not enthroned. The Portals column of today's WSJ uses the monicker: "Bubble II," although that was more suitable to the author's point. Still, he could have written "Bubble 2.0," but he didn't. QED

[Charles Wood]

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's call it what everybody else will be calling it: "the Internet." Catchy huh? (Yeah, I know the web is only one facet of the net.)

The vast majority of human beings don't know or care about "Web 2.0" or what-have-you, and they will keep calling it "teh internets". Cause, that's what it is. Did we change the name of the entire web when XML/XHTML got everybody all excited? Nope! (And for that matter, I'd say that lots of people are still using HTML.)

Change is part of the internet. I don't see any reason to go around coming up with a new name for it every time it changes.

[Alan Gutierrez]

I'm working in New Orleans.

I'm trying to get communities to share infomration using the web.

They don't use the web.

They do use the Internet.

To them the web mean a "web site".

People here use e-mail.

A "web site" is what Yahoo! does. It is what a law firm gets for their
business card.

People love to CC each other in chain e-mail messages. That's how they use the Internet in New Orleans. No Google Juice for NOLA.

It is not even "Web 1.0".

"Web 2.0" is utter non-sense.

Good for nothing but vacant stares.

Or pleading looks.

Please, please don't fill my head with technobabble that I'll never, ever use!

"The People's Web"? It's not that people react to communism, so much as they react to elite technologists who evoke "the people".

People want solutions, not manifestos.

I'm talking about "social networking software", which sounds like there's something behind it.

I'm trying out a new term called...

"Community Information Systems", which seems to get some good response.

http://blogometer.com/2006/03/23/community-information-systems/

[Kathy Sierra]

I agree with Sid:
"Maybe "Web 2.0" is good because it suggests but doesn't define. One's first thought is "what is that?" It fuels conversation."

Love it or hate it, it HAS gotten a lot of people to think, debate, argue, clarify, create, and on it goes.

Mostly, though, I like it because it's sooooo easy to make fun of. The web would be diminished somehow without all those Web 2.0 checklists, Choose Your Web 2.0 Name, Web 2.0 interface design parodies, Web 2.0 buzzword bingo, and the list goes on forever...

It's fascinating how polarizing the label is, but Charles makes a good point:
The vast majority of human beings don't know or care about "Web 2.0"
It's the developers who care, while our users will simply feel a subtle but continous shift toward a more dynamic, participative experience.

With rounded corners.

And big fonts.

And don't forget the lime green...