I’ve been seeing references to something called “Web 2.0” — was there some sort of Internet upgrade while I was sleeping? Am I out of date? (Note for new readers- this is sarcasm) I see folks are aiming to define it precisely.

While I accept, support, participate in the notion that web content as we use/see it is evolving to something more than hand spun HTML static content (a good thing), but what the heck does defining a moving target get you?

Does it mean all of the Web 1.0 is obsolete, like showing up for your high school reunion driving a Yugo? I don’t think attributes define things that cleanly- there are plenty of web content that is static, may have an ampersand in its URL (??), lacks RSS (it is great, but not everything needs it), etc that is still good, valid, interesting content.

Or let’s not classify, rate, value content on basis of its technological characteristics, but its informational, experiential ones.

It has a strong odor of uber jargon, but should ever I start babbling in 48 point font about Web 2.0, someone please throw this entry in may face.

Now where are the keys to my Yugo?

The post "Web 5.0 Did I miss the Upgrade?" was originally slapped on the butt by a cigar smoking doctor yelling "It's a post!" at CogDogBlog (http://cogdogblog.com/2005/04/web-50/) on April 26, 2005.

Comments are closed.