Web 2.

0 is the term given to describe a second generation of the World Wide Web that is focused on
the ability for people to collaborate and share information online. Web 2.0 basically refers to the
transition from static HTML Web pages to a more dynamic Web that is more organized and is based on
serving Web applications to users.
Other improved functionality of Web 2.0 includes open communication with an emphasis on Web-based
communities of users, and more open sharing of information. Over time Web 2.0 has been used more as
a marketing term than a computer-science-based term. Blogs, wikis, and Web servicesare all seen as
components of Web 2.0.
Web 2.0 was previously used as a synonym for Semantic Web, but while the two are similar, they do not
share precisely the same meaning.


WEB 3.0:
The term used to describe the evolution of the Web as an extension of Web 2.0. This definition of Web
3.0 is the popular view held by Tim O'Reilly.


Web 2.0
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A tag cloud (a typical Web 2.0 phenomenon in itself) presenting Web 2.0 themes. An interactive version
is available here.
Web 2.0 describes World Wide Web sites that use technology beyond the static pages of earlier Web
sites. The term was coined in 1999 by Darcy DiNucci and was popularized by Tim O'Reilly at the O'Reilly
Media Web 2.0 conference in late 2004.[1][2] Although Web 2.0 suggests a new version of the World
Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specification, but rather to cumulative
changes in the way Web pages are made and used.
A Web 2.0 site may allow users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as
creators of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to Web sites where people are
limited to the passive viewing of content. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking
sites, blogs, wikis, folksonomies, video sharing sites, hosted services, Web applications, and mashups.[3]
Whether Web 2.0 is substantively different from prior Web technologies has been challenged by World
Wide Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who describes the term as jargon.[4] His original vision of the
Web was "a collaborative medium, a place where we [could] all meet and read and write".[5][6]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 History
o 1.1 "Web 1.0"
* 1.1.1 Characteristics
o 1.2 Web 2.0
* 2 Characteristics
* 3 Technologies
* 4 Concepts
* 5 Usage
* 6 Web 2.0 in education
* 7 Web 2.0 and philanthropy
* 8 Web 2.0 in social work
* 9 Web-based applications and desktops
* 10 Distribution of media
o 10.1 XML and RSS
o 10.2 Web APIs
* 11 Criticism
* 12 Trademark
* 13 See also
* 14 References
* 15 External links
History[edit]
"Web 1.0"[edit]
Web 1.0 is a retronym referring to an early stage of the World Wide Web's evolution.
According to Cormode, G. and Krishnamurthy, B. (2008): "content creators were few in Web 1.0 with the
vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content." [7]
Personal web pages were common, consisting mainly of static pages hosted on ISP-run servers, or on
free hosting services such as Geocities.[8][9] With the advent of Web 2.0, it was more common for the
average web user to have social networking profiles on sites such as Myspace and Facebook, as well as
personal blogs on one of the new low-cost web hosting services. The content for both were generated
dynamically from content stored in a relational database[citation needed], allowing for readers to
comment directly on pages in a way that was not previously common.[citation needed]
Web 2.0 capabilities were present in the days of Web 1.0 but implemented differently. For example, a
Web 1.0 site may have had a guestbook page to publish visitor comments, instead of a comment
section at the end of each page. Server performance and bandwidth considerations meant that having a
long comments thread on each page could potentially slow down the site.
Terry Flew, in his 3rd Edition of New Media described what he believed to characterize the differences
between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0:
"move from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from publishing to participation, from
web content as the outcome of large up-front investment to an ongoing and interactive process, and
from content management systems to links based on tagging (folksonomy)".
Flew believed it to be the above factors that form the basic change in trends that resulted in the onset
of the Web 2.0 "craze".[10]

Some design elements of a Web 1.0 site include:
* Static pages instead of dynamic HTML.[11]
* Content served from the server's filesystem instead of a RDBMS.
* The use of HTML 3.2-era elements such as Framing (World Wide Web)s[citation needed] and tables to
position and align elements on a page. These were often used in combination with spacer GIFs.[citation
needed]
* Proprietary HTML extensions, such as the <blink> and <marquee> tags, introduced during the first
browser war.[citation needed]
* Online guestbooks.[citation needed]
* GIF buttons, graphics typically 88x31 pixels in size promoting web browsers, operating systems, text
editors and various other products.[12]
* HTML forms sent via email. Support for server side scripting was rare on shared servers during this
period. To provide a feedback mechanism for web site visitors, mailto formswere used. A user would fill
in a form, and upon clicking the form's submit button, their email client would launch and attempt to
send an email containing the form's details.[13]
Web 2.0[edit]
The term "Web 2.0" was first used in January 1999 by Darcy DiNucci, a consultant on electronic
information design (information architecture). In her article, "Fragmented Future", DiNucci writes:[14]
The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls, is only
an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are
just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfuls of
text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will
[...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...]
hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven.
Writing when Palm Inc. was introducing its first Web-capable personal digital assistant, supporting Web
access with WAP, DiNucci saw the Web "fragmenting" into a future that extended far beyond the
browser/PC combination it was identified with. Her vision of the Web's future focused on how the basic
information structure and hyperlinking mechanism introduced by HTTP would be used by a variety of
devices and platforms. As such, her use of the "2.0" designation refers to a next version of the Web that
does not directly relate to the term's current use.[citation needed]
The term Web 2.0 did not resurface until 2002.[15][16][17][18] These authors focus on the concepts
currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a universal,
standards-based integration platform".[17] John Robb wrote: "What is Web 2.0? It is a system that
breaks with the old model of centralized Web sites and moves the power of the Web/Internet to the
desktop."[18]
The term Web 2.0 was initially championed by bloggers and by technology journalists, culminating in
the 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year (You).[21] That is, TIMEselected the masses of users who
were participating in content creation on social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites. In the
cover story, Lev Grossman explains:
It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic
compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online
metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for
nothing and how that will not only change the world but also change the way the world changes.
The key features of Web 2.0 [28] include:
1. Folksonomy- free classification of information; allows users to collectively classify and find
information (e.g. Tagging)
2. Rich User Experience- dynamic content; responsive to user input[citation needed]
3. User as a Contributor- information flows two ways between site owner and site user by means of
evaluation, review, and commenting
4. Long tail- services offered on demand basis; profit is realized through monthly service subscriptions
more than one-time purchases of goods over the network[citation needed]
5. User Participation - site users add content for others to see (e.g. Crowdsourcing)
6. Software as a service - Web 2.0 sites developed API to allow automated usage, such as by
an app or mashup
7. Basic Trust - contributions are available for the world to use, reuse, or re-purpose
8. Dispersion - content delivery uses multiple channels (e.g. file sharing, permalinks); digital resources
and services are sought more than physical goods[citation needed]
9. Mass Participation[citation needed]
10. Technologies[edit]
11. The client-side (Web browser) technologies used in Web 2.0 development
include Ajax and JavaScript frameworks such as YUI Library, Dojo
Toolkit, MooTools, jQuery, Ext JS andPrototype JavaScript Framework. Ajax programming uses JavaScript
and the Document Object Model to update selected regions of the page area without undergoing a full
page reload.
12. To allow users to continue to interact with the page, communications such as data requests going to
the server are separated from data coming back to the page (asynchronously). Otherwise, the user
would have to routinely wait for the data to come back before they can do anything else on that page,
just as a user has to wait for a page to complete the reload. This also increases overall performance of
the site, as the sending of requests can complete quicker independent of blocking and queueing
required to send data back to the client.
On the server-side, Web 2.0 uses many of the same technologies as Web 1.0. Languages such
as PHP, Ruby, Perl, Python, as well as Enterprise Java (J2EE) and Microsoft.NET Framework, are used by
developers to output data dynamically using information from files and databases. What has begun to
change in Web 2.0 is the way this data is formatted. In the early days of the Internet, there was little
need for different Web sites to communicate with each other and share data. In the new "participatory
Web", however, sharing data between sites has become an essential capability.[citation needed] To
share its data with other sites, a Web site must be able to generate output in machine-readable formats
such as XML (Atom, RSS, etc.) and JSON. When a site's data is available in one of these formats, another
Web site can use it to integrate a portion of that site's functionality into itself.
Concepts[edit]

Web 2.0 can be described in three parts:
* Rich Internet application (RIA) defines the experience brought from desktop to browser whether it
is from a graphical point of view or usability point of view.
* Web-oriented architecture (WOA) is a key piece in Web 2.0,[citation needed] which defines how
Web 2.0 applications expose their functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate the
functionality providing a set of much richer applications. Examples are feeds, RSS, Web Services, mash-
ups.
* Social Web defines how Web 2.0 tends to interact much more with the end user and make the end-
user an integral part.
As such, Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client- and server-side software, content
syndication and the use of network protocols. Standards-oriented Web browsers may use plug-ins and
software extensions to handle the content and the user interactions. Web 2.0 sites provide users
with information storage, creation, and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the
environment now known as "Web 1.0".
Web 2.0 sites include the following features and techniques, referred to as the acronym SLATES by
Andrew McAfee:[30]
Search
Finding information through keyword search.
Links
Connects information together into a meaningful information ecosystem using the model of the
Web, and provides low-barrier social tools.
Authoring
The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many rather than
just a few Web authors. In wikis, users may extend, undo and redo each other's work. In blogs, posts and
the comments of individuals build up over time.
Tags
Categorization of content by users adding "tags" short, usually one-word descriptions to
facilitate searching, without dependence on pre-made categories. Collections of tags created by many
users within a single system may be referred to as "folksonomies" (i.e., folk taxonomies)
Extensions
Software that makes the Web an application platform as well as a document server. These
include software like Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, ActiveX,Oracle
Java, QuickTime, Windows Media, etc
Signals
The use of syndication technology, such as RSS to notify users of content changes.While SLATES
forms the basic framework of Enterprise 2.0, it does not contradict all of the higher level Web 2.0 design
patterns and business models. In this way, a new Web 2.0 report from O'Reilly is quite effective and
diligent in interweaving the story of Web 2.0 with the specific aspects of Enterprise 2.0. It includes
discussions of self-service IT, the long tail of enterprise IT demand, and many other consequences of the
Web 2.0 era in the enterprise. The report also makes many sensible recommendations around starting
small with pilot projects and measuring results, among a fairly long list.[31]

Usage[edit]
A third important part of Web 2.0 is the Social web. The social Web consists of a number of online tools
and platforms where people share their perspectives, opinions, thoughts and experiences. Web 2.0
applications tend to interact much more with the end user. As such, the end user is not only a user of
the application but also a participant by:
* Podcasting
* Blogging
* Tagging
* Curating with RSS
* Social bookmarking
* Social networking
* Web content voting

Marketing
For marketers, Web 2.0 offers an opportunity to engage consumers. A growing number of marketers are
using Web 2.0 tools to collaborate with consumers on product development, service enhancement and
promotion. Companies can use Web 2.0 tools to improve collaboration with both its business partners
and consumers. Among other things, company employees have created wikisWeb sites that allow
users to add, delete, and edit content to list answers to frequently asked questions about each
product, and consumers have added significant contributions. Another marketing Web 2.0 lure is to
make sure consumers can use the online community to network among themselves on topics of their
own choosing.[43]
Mainstream media usage of Web 2.0 is increasing. Saturating media hubslike The New York Times, PC
Magazine and Business Week with links to popular new Web sites and services, is critical to achieving
the threshold for mass adoption of those services.[44]
Web 2.0 offers financial institutions abundant opportunities to engage with customers. Networks such
as Twitter, Yelp and Facebook are now becoming common elements of multichannel and customer
loyalty strategies, and banks are beginning to use these sites proactively to spread their messages. In a
recent article for Bank Technology News, Shane Kite describes how Citigroup's Global Transaction
Services unit monitors social media outlets to address customer issues and improve products.
Furthermore, the financial services industry uses Twitter to release "breaking news" and upcoming
events, and YouTube to disseminate videos that feature executives speaking about market news.[45]
Small businesses have become more competitive by using Web 2.0 marketing strategies to compete
with larger companies. As new businesses grow and develop, new technology is used to decrease the
gap between businesses and customers. Social networks have become more intuitive and user friendly
to provide information that is easily reached by the end user. For example, companies use Twitter to
offer customers coupons and discounts for products and services.[46]
According to Google Timeline, the term Web 2.0 was discussed and indexed most frequently in 2005,
2007 and 2008. Its average use is continuously declining by 24% per quarter since April 2008.[citation
needed]
Web 2.0 in education[edit]
Web 2.0 technologies can provide students with more engagement through greater customization and
choice of topics, and less distraction from their peers.[47]
By allowing students to use the technology tools of Web 2.0, teachers are giving students the
opportunity to share what they learn with peers. Some are concerned that these technologies could
hinder the personal interaction of students: "Social networking sites have worried many educators (and
parents) because they often bring with them outcomes that are not positive: narcissism, gossip, wasted
time, 'friending', hurt feelings, ruined reputations, and sometimes unsavory, even dangerous
activities".[49]
Web 2.0 and philanthropy[edit]
The spread of participatory information-sharing over the world, combined with recent improvements in
lower cost internet access in developing countries, has opened up new possibilities for peer-to-peer
charities, which allow individuals to contribute small amounts to charitable projects for other
individuals. Web sites such as Donors Choose and Global Giving now allow small-scale donors to direct
funds to individual projects of their choice.
A popular twist on internet-based philanthropy is the use of peer-to-peer lending for charitable
purposes. Sites like Kiva, KivaZip, Zidisha, MyC4, RangeDe, Vittana, Lendwithcareoffers peer-to-peer
microlending platforms to link lenders and borrowers across international borders.
Web 2.0 in social work[edit]
The social work profession is embracing Web 2.0 technologies. One of the first references to Social Work
2.0 was made in "The New Social Worker" magazine, which was started by Linda May Grobman, MSW,
ACSW, LSW, in spring of 1994. This online publication continues to explore the application of Web 2.0
technology within the social work community. The first article of an ongoing SW 2.0 series was entitled
"Caring Bridge: A Valuable Tool for Social Workers and Those With Critical Illness," written by Karen
Zgoda, MSW, LCSW. It was followed by a column entitled, "Social Work? There's a Blog for That," by
Karen Zgoda.The article noted that blogging was quickly becoming a phenomenon within the social work
community. Both students and professionals had begun chronicling their career development as well as
sharing information from their respective practice areas.[51]In 2007, Jonathan Singer, Ph.D. started The
Social Work Podcast, which provides information about all things social work, followed by a more
formalized outline of the meaning of Social Work 2.0 in 2009.[52]
In 2010, Social Work Today Magazine analyzed the disconnect between the social work community and
the under utilization of advanced technologies in social work organizations.[53] Meanwhile, mobile
technology was changing the way society accessed the World Wide Web and communicated with each
other. With the expansion of mobile technology, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
published a 2010 study investigating child welfare workers' attitudes towards mobile technology
tools.[54] Social workers realize the potential that technology presents in expanding their ability to
connect with each other and service users as reported by The Guardian in an April 7, 2011 article.[55] As
time and technology evolve, the social work profession is expanding with it