I’m over it. Everywhere you look, it’s Web 2.0, Web 2.0 … Some of the staff at my place of work didn’t even know there was a Web 1.0 and I don’t have the heart to tell them that there wasn’t until Web 2.0 came along.
Now, just as they’re coming to grips with Web 2.0, they’ve learnt from Google University that Web 3.0 is just around the corner. I don’t have the heart to tell them that so far, it’s actually just Web 2.1, but everyone inflates their version numbers to fool you into thinking that their thing is bigger than it really is …
Maybe we hang on to our labels way past their shelf life. We don’t say ‘Distance Education’ all that much because on the web, it’s all distance education. But we still use ‘Flexible Learning’, when it’s all flexible learning – apart from the odd Boot Camp here and there.
And we still talk about ‘Web 2.0′ in a web world richly populated with collaborative, interactive, media-rich, multi-user experiences. Why? Once it might have been appropriate to highlight the unique benefits of a small, new sector of the web experience by giving it a special label. But now, when the unique has become ubiquitous, what’s the point?
Let’s retire Web 2.0 as a label. If it’s not all Web 2.0 now, it soon will be.
8 responses so far ↓
ajcann // July 17, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I don’t like 3.0 (at least not for what is currently being developed, which you’re right is 2.1), nor “semantic”. “New media” is even worse, so on balance, I talk about social media these days, because that’s the most descriptive phrase.
Steve Ransom // July 17, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I agree that labels become meaningless at some point. In general, we need to stop fixating on labeling and remain focused on learning opportunity and potential. Call it Web 911GT 4.0 Carerra if you would like. Labels can serve as distractions for the inherent learning potential behind them. They can also create barriers for those who are not current in the technologies. However, when focusing on learning, inherent pedagogies don’t change all that much… only how we harness new tools to implement them.
joe // July 18, 2008 at 4:52 am
Yes down with Web 2.0 and 3.0! And while we are at it lets burn some books.
The educational mechanic // July 18, 2008 at 8:24 am
That’s it!! Web 911GT 4.0 Carerra! Well, maybe in the future. Hmm, how about Web WRX for the current level of sophistication?
Joe, I actually did write more after the heading …
Ian // July 20, 2008 at 7:37 am
Web 2.0 is and always was a buzzword imo. Management types love it, so until they decide it’s dead we will probably keep hearing it. The web does not progress in version numbers like software, it’s a natural organic progression that is happening daily all over the world. Lets retire Web 2.0 and all future Web version buzzwords.
screensailor // July 20, 2008 at 7:50 am
The book “Wikinomics” (which I recommend) gives good illustrations about this topic.
I also recommend the semantic research in the Norwegian Oil Industry Association, which is state of the art.
screensailor // July 31, 2008 at 4:59 am
Thanks for an interesting article,
Best regards,
http://www.screensailor.com
John Larkin // November 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Yes. I have ranted against the terminology yet I have given up. I felt like Canute trying to push back the bloody tide. Web Poo, Point – Oh!