This link has been bookmarked by 23 people . It was first bookmarked on 16 Oct 2006, by Benjamin Jörissen.
-
08 May 09
-
15 Mar 09
Martin LindnerHow did we get here? First of all, Web 2.0 is a marketing slogan. For perspective on this, let us go to what some would call a creature of Web 2.0 itself- Wikipedia. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about this Web 2.0:
-
30 May 08
-
11 Nov 07
Adriana LukasAgree with the article, which is not to say that the concepts of Web 2.0 are not alive and well. It's the marketers getting hold of the terms and companies raising money on the back of it, that I object to. What Tim O'Reilly was trying to describe in h...
-
21 Oct 07
-
18 Oct 07
Bill FreeseWeb 2.0 is not dead, because it never existed in the first place.
-
05 Oct 07
-
03 May 07
-
07 Mar 07
-
19 Oct 06
-
16 Oct 06
-
It’s just that they cannot be classified under a common umbrella.
-
-
26 Sep 06
-
09 Aug 06
-
26 May 06
-
15 Jan 06
-
06 Jan 06
-
No, I am not turning into a "flat-earther." The world is pear-shaped, Pluto is not a planet, and global warming exists. But Web 2.0 does not exist. The advances being touted under the general umbrella of Web 2.0- advances written about with considerable skill on our own Web 2.0 Explorer Blog by our own Richard MacManus - well, of course those advances exist. RSS, Social Media, content aggregation, podcasting, you have it. My problem is not with the characterization of the components of Web 2.0. It is the implication inherent in the very livery, "Web 2.0," that I just don't get. How did we get here? First of all, Web 2.0 is a marketing slogan. For perspective on this, let us go to what some would call a creature of Web 2.0 itself- Wikipedia. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about this Web 2.0:
-
-
22 Dec 05
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.