All the rage regarding Web 2.0 - so what exactly is it?

I’ve been fascinated by the term Web 2.0 since the phrase was coined. So were a lot of people from all different camps. Is it a design style? Is it development methodologies? Is it the way users interact with platforms as a service? The democratization of data? API’s? Social Networking? Eeeeeek…! Where does it begin or end? More importantly, what exactly is it? You might think that’s a dumb question, yet it is still one that is asked every so often. Whichever way you look at it, it is one of those vague and almost undefinable phenomenons. So whether you know what it is or whether you think it is a dead horse being flogged, it doesn’t matter. The fact is it is here, whether you love, hate or even know it!

What I find amusing is that nobody argues about what defines a Social Networking site — what is a Social Networks and how does it work and/or what can you do with it. Amazing, isn’t it? Yet, you ask any number of people and every single one of them would in some form or another give you a different definition. Why is that? In my simple mind it is due to two reasons.

Firstly, it is because Web 2.0 is badly defined. Ask anyone of the above people you asked to explain Web 2.0 whether they think Web 2.0 is well defined, and the answer really should be “No”. Yes, you can read the Wikipedia definition and try and make sense of that, but in all honesty, if you are not directly involved in developing, running or marketing Internet applications, you will not understand exactly what they mean. It sometimes feels like a string of intelligent words put into play in such a way that it leaves it open for vast interpretation. For example:

Web 2.0 is a term describing the trend in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aims to enhance creativity, information sharing, and, most notably, collaboration among users.

This definition could mean any number of things.

Secondly, its about a war of wills. A war of different points of view and no one wants to lose. All this because people from different backgrounds were brought together by the very thing that causes them to argue.

All of a sudden, you have designers saying “it is a very specific style of design” and marketing people saying “its about building a network of people and generating (user generated) content” and developers fighting fiercely that it is “Rich Internet Applications (RIA)” and normal Internet users saying “what’s the fuss about? I’m connecting with people and making new friends and have a voice I never had before. That is Web 2.0!”. Funny thing is that none of these people are right or wrong. It is none of the above on its own, but all of the above together and more.

The sooner you realise that Web 2.0’s definition depends on the angle you look at it, the sooner you would put your mind at ease and move forward. Different people with different functions or roles will see it from their own unique point of view. So why fight about it? Why then do some people branch off and start new definitions like Enterprise 2.0 and Business 2.0? Are we that stubborn to learn, or that hell bent on winning? Surely by accepting different points of views it would make the definition more clear and grow the phenomenal concept that is Web 2.0, right?

Lets put this issue to rest for once and for all and move on to version 3.0 of the Internet! (I do say this with a distinct hint of sarcasm as I think it was a bad idea from the start to use software versioning as a term that should describe something new. That’s another story altogether!)