Web 2.0

Invented by Tim Berners-Lee in March 1989 and implemented on Christmas day 1990, the World Wide Web was born. What a great present for humanity. It's doubtful if anyone then could foresee how it would evolve. How does Web 2.0 fit in?

Well, firstly Web 2.0 is not new. It's only a descriptive term used or should be used to describe some interactive part or parts of the internet that include but are not limited to social networking sites like facebook. Many of the interconnected components and software applications used have been around for years and certainly long before any 'brain storming session' came up with the idea of tagging a number on. Car manufacturers have been doing this for years.

The first Web 2.0 conference was held in October 5, 2004 in San Francisco. A quick check of the main speakers' backgrounds will give you a better idea of where Web 2.0 is going or where they would like it to go. The next Web 2.0 summit is scheduled for November 5, 2008 in San Francisco. You can sign up for it at web2con.com. A great domain name, isn't it? If you do go, remember to wear a flower in your hair. I'm just joking and only jealous that I won't make it this year with my chrysanthemum.

Anyway, with the domain web3con.com already parked up, it could mean Web 3.0 is just around the corner. Or perhaps, a 2.0i version will be released for people with high speed internet connections?

So what is Web 2.0 all about?

As technology improves and evolves, the internet continues to grow and evolve with it. But it is still the internet. Call it the net, the web, or whatever you like, but please don't tag a number on the end. The next thing will be the Big Mac 2.0 or the Whopper 3.1 with French Fries 4.0. Give us a break and stop now! Life is complicated enough.

One interesting definition from Wikipedia is:
'Web 2.0 can be defined as the philosophy of mutually maximizing collective intelligence and added value for each participant by formalized and dynamic information sharing and creation.'

On its own, this definition is absolutely meaningless and could be applied to a myriad of other things. It is far too vague. See how easily the word 'hype' fits into the definition. To make any sense of it, we could break it down into simpler terms. However, there's no need to waste valuable time here. The word 'philosophy' in the definition says it all. The only question is 'whose philosophy' is it? I'll let you decide that.

You will find what is expressed as a complete web 2.0 directory at go2web20.net. I don't know about you, but to me this clearly demonstrates that web 2.0 or rather the definition of it is little more than a small subset of the internet as a whole. If you are curious about this and other domain names and their implementation, a little digging around will reward you with some fascinating facts.

Earlier this month, Facebook named Google's global sales head, Sheryl Sandberg, as the social-networking site's new chief operations officer. She will be responsible for helping Facebook expand its operations and its global presence. Of course, expansion is not without danger. A Moroccan engineer was recently sentenced to three years in jail for setting up a Facebook profile in the name of Prince Moulay Rachid.

As social networking grows, some of the information contained within many websites will at some point become a cause for concern. The European Union, the United States and other governments are already monitoring it to some degree. If we are optimistic, the policing and government involvement should be minimal. If not, George Orwell's vision will seem like a utopian dream.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to money, power and control. If the term Web 2.0 is used to attract new business or open doors to new opportunities for businesses and entrepreneurs, it's not a bad thing. However, with or without the expression, this will happen anyway as social networking and the internet continually evolve. Let us hope that the web is not turned into a media circus or a digital supermarket with a plethora of advertisers bidding for the best slots on the growing number of social networking sites, or worse, monopolized by major companies guilty of past offline small business demise.