Top 10 Reasons Why Versioning the Web is Silly

by Ari Herzog on November 3, 2008 · 9 comments

How many times have you seen any of the following concepts in relation to social media and its versions?

Web 2.0
Business 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Government 2.0
Sales 2.0, PR 2.0, Hiring 2.0, Education 2.0
Library 2.0, Classroom 2.0, Museum 2.0
Mobile 2.0, Electricity 2.0, Gas 2.0
Campaign 2.0, Voting 2.0
Publishing 2.0, Identity 2.0, Women 2.0

The list goes on and on. If you’ve never heard of one, bring up your favorite search engine, copy and paste, and voila! You can read all about it.

To save you the trouble, and in reactions to 1) recent articles by Lidija Davis of ReadWriteWeb on semantic web advertising and by Jamie Scheu to stop versioning the web and 2) a challenge by Brian Clark of CopyBlogger to create a catchy headline a la PC World, I share with you 10 reasons why versioning the web is silly, using Web 2.0 as an example:

People understand “the web.” Keep it simple.

Show me a common definition used by consultants, specialists, vendors, and technologists.

Unless Web 2.0 can be defined without context to Web 1.0 and Web 3.0, stop using it.

There remains a large digital gap worldwide, as many countries (and urban American cities) lack broadband access, without which most web applications are meaningless.

Can you explain Web 2.0’s history without mentioning Tim O’Reilly who coined the term?

High schoolers and other digital natives in my town use Facebook, but never heard of Web 2.0.

My grandmother reads about eBay and Amazon, but the Denver Post doesn’t cover stories on Web 2.0.

Wait until every member of society can depress the Jeopardy! buzzer at the same second to ask, “What is Web 2.0?” in response to the answer, “This concept describes the Internet as a business platform and not merely a service.”

Wait until David Letterman devotes a “Top 10 Reasons Why Web 2.0 is Great” list.

The moment you agree Web 2.0 makes sense, you create 2.0 versions for everything else. See how silly it is?

Do you have any other reasons to add to this list? Or do you think this list is silly?

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or following future articles by RSS subscription or email delivery.

No related posts.

Comments:

{ 2 trackbacks }

Social Media Maketing Vs Web 2.0 Marketing, BusinessWeek’s Big Mistake: November 4, 2008 at 4:11 AM
(b)log-in: harnessing the web’s second effect » Sean Finnegan: January 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM

{ 7 comments }

1 Kim Woodbridge November 3, 2008 at 4:11 PM Twitter: @kwbridge: I don’t think I’ve ever located a definition that really defined Web 2.0 for me. And it is true that you can not locate a definition without Tim O’Reilly being mentioned.

Kim Woodbridge´s last blog post..(Anti) Social-Lists 11/2/08
2 Jamie Scheu November 3, 2008 at 5:36 PM: To me, Web 2.0 means services with names that either sound like baby talk (see http://fadtastic.net/2006/08/25/web-2goo-goo-gah-gah/ ) or leave out all the vowels (Flickr, etc… even Reebok got in on this with Rbk). Oh, and of course interfaces that look like they’re made of Jolly Ranchers (should I click this button or lick it?).

And I’m only half kidding…

Jamie Scheu´s last blog post..What Does Great Customer Service Look Like?
3 Ari Herzog November 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM: Hi Kim and Jamie, thanks for stopping by! Here’s something to think about: If the lack of a (near) universal definition for Web 2.0 is a reason not to use it, then how about a definition for social media?

Oh, and Jamie, your verbiage of “lick it” was caught by Akismet, thinking you’re a sex spammer!
4 Craig November 4, 2008 at 5:41 PM Twitter: @budgetpulse: I agree, when you step back and look at it, it sounds ridiculous. Basically it just is the catchphrase of the time in the social media world and a way to sound like you know what you are talking about. I have to admit, I’ve used the term with my parents to make it seem like I’m more in the scene.
5 Scott November 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM: When I just see “WEB 2.0″, it might as well had been “goo goo gaa gaa uga uga2.0″. To me they make about us much sense. I suppose, like you say, if the whole world was in the know, it might have a little more meaning, but by that time it will just be called “the web” anyway.

Scott´s last blog post..Motivationallessness
6 bob ashley November 5, 2008 at 6:35 PM Twitter: @bashley: I’ll go contrary-minded, to suggest that the term web 2.0 has enjoyed truck, a common currency that has proved quite useful to a lot of people. Leveling the challenge to find a good definition is a damp squib, not unlike challenging someone to define “friendship” or “love” or “community”.

I think the trouble is tags like web2.0 suffer a short half-life, beyond which they become threadbare, shopworn. Like “groovy”, really cool word…for awhile. It’s exacerbated when a word/term is embedded in the register of anything–especially technology–which is always on the wing. So we just create new vocabularies, which is what we’ve doing since the 11th century in the days of Saxons.

Evaluating language has never got anyone anywhere (especially the Grammar Police) because no one owns it and everyone makes and remakes it. Good thing, maybe, otherwise we’d still be speaking Anglo-Saxon.

bob
7 Kikolani | Poetry, Photography, Blogging Tips November 6, 2008 at 11:36 AM Twitter: @kikolani: I think versioning the web just confuses people who may use all the web 2.0 features but not know that is what they are. It probably does help sell books and magazines, as they can come out with new publications every time there is a new “version” with features that people “must” learn about.

~ Kristi

Kikolani | Poetry, Photography, Blogging Tips´s last blog post..People Come Into Your Life For A Reason