What is Web 2.0?

Listening to the wide-ranging conversations regarding the Web 2.0 meme, I keep coming back to the old Buffalo Springfield lyric in “For What It’s Worth”: “There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear.”

The skeptics like Tim Bray point out that this concept has come to mean anything that the speaker wants it to mean. The champions, most notably Tim O’Reilly, volley back that the rapid spread of the meme indicates that it “does capture the widespread sense that there’s something qualitatively different about today’s web.”

There’s no denying that the meme has taken hold, having been developed only about 18 months ago by Dale Dougherty of O’Reilly Media. Unfortunately, as the Wikipedia entry on Web 2.0 reports, Dale never really defined the term, using examples rather than a definition to communicate its meaning: "DoubleClick was Web 1.0; Google AdSense is Web 2.0. Ofoto is Web 1.0; Flickr is Web 2.0."

Many people since have attempted a definition, most notably Richard MacManus here and here, Martin at the Mediatope blog, Jay Cross and Dion Hinchcliffe.  Tim O’Reilly promises an article on “What is Web 2.0” while in the meantime offering a list of Web 2.0 “design patterns” and a Web 2.0 Meme Map (hat tip to Chris Anderson).  There are even dedicated Web 2.0 blogs here, here and here.

It is striking to me that virtually all of these definitions end up being lists of one type or another. They seem to be focusing on examples, components or dimensions of Web 2.0 without really getting to the essence of the concept.  Since I have enormous respect for the folks who have tried to capture the meaning of this term, I suspect there is probably good reason why they have stayed at the level of examples, components or dimensions and avoided the temptation to try to capture the essence.

Yet, in looking at these lists, I can’t help but feel that there is an essence behind the term that is waiting to be captured.  So, in the spirit of entering the conversation, let me suggest that Web 2.0 ultimately refers to “an emerging network-centric platform to support distributed, collaborative and cumulative creation by its users.” Let's look at each element of the definition separately:

Platform. Platform is an important concept because it suggests a foundation that is meant to be built upon rather than self-contained. 

Emerging. It is emerging because it supports extensions to itself, facilitating a bootstrapping process to create very complex functionality from very simple building blocks. Web 2.0 is far from a finished product, it is a rapidly evolving platform.

Network-centric. In contrast to other technology platforms like PCs or mainframes, it is not a standalone platform, but instead Web 2.0 is built upon an open network, making it pervasive, extending across the entire globe. As a network-centric platform, it is device-independent – it is meant to be accessed by devices of all kinds, ranging from PCs and mobile phones to RFID tags and bio-sensor devices.

Creation. The ultimate purpose and significance of the platform is to support creation, not just communication or participation in sharing of interests. This is what makes it truly distinctive relative to previous generations of networks. We’re also not just talking about creation of media or digital products and services – this platform is becoming central to the creation of a broad range of physical products as well.

Users. Rather than viewing creation as a highly specialized activity, this platform encourages users of all types to become involved in the creation process.  The well-established boundaries between producers and consumers and professionals and amateurs are rapidly eroding.

Distributed. Because it is pervasive, Web 2.0 facilitates distributed creation – it doesn’t matter where the individuals or communities reside, they can access the platform.

Collaboration. Because it is built upon a network, it also enhances the potential for collaboration.  We are not talking about isolated nodes of creation, but instead the ability for individuals and communities to connect together in the creative process in ways that were never possible before.

Cumulative. Perhaps the most important aspect of this platform is that it encourages cumulative creation.  This stems from the modularity that is a key design principle of Web 2.0 and it has profound implications for creative activity.  It means that wherever and whenever creative activity occurs, it can be appropriated and built upon by others, further strengthening the bootstrapping process. Since what is being created is meant to be shared, it becomes less and less useful to think of the output as products and much more important to view the output as services that in turn support the creation of other services.

Because of the focus on creation, I am very taken with Ross Mayfield’s formulation that “the web is increasingly less about places and other nouns, but verbs.”

In many respects, Web 2.0 represents a return to origins of Internet.  The original goal of the pioneers developing and deploying the Internet was to connect researchers and their computers together so that they could more effectively pursue their research in distributed locations.  The addition of the World Wide Web in the early 1990’s, despite the best intentions of its key developer, Tim Berners Lee, ended up representing a detour from that original vision.  Although there were certainly exceptions, Web 1.0 largely consisted of stand-alone web sites for specialized publishers and vendors seeking to more effectively reach audiences and consumers. It was a broadcast and distribution medium, rather than a creation medium.  Web 2.0 changes all that.

While the Web 2.0 definition I propose may lead some people to focus attention on the technologies required to build this emergent platform, I agree with Tim O’Reilly that it is more helpful to describe it as a mindset.  Technologies alone can only do so much – they are ultimately only enablers.  The real power is in the mindset that will be required to re-shape economic, social and legal frameworks to exploit the full potential of the technology.

I hope that these economic, social and legal issues get as much, if not more, attention in the forthcoming Web 2.0 conference organized by Tim and others.

Comments

[Web 2 Conference Boy]

Great posting on Web 2.0. So now 4 years on what's your opinion on this matter? Do you think there's viable ROI in Web 2.0 [other than forming a successful start-up and selling it off].

More interestingly do you think you can really monetise Web 2.0?

There's some that say "yes", others "no" and the undecided!

http://blog.tmcnet.com/next-generation-communications/2009/08/monetizing_web_20.html

Still, conferences and meets seem to get this question answered outright:

http://www.web2events.com/day1.htm

I think it'd be good to return to the subject :-D

[law of attraction]

You have a knack for making a difficult subject easy to understand. You did a very nice job.

Thanks a lot!

[thinkbanc]

I have to comment on your last post about the subject as it was so informative. You really know what you are talking about and can explain things really well. I have only read posts by one other guy who writes as well as you do.

[Thommes]

Does “Web 2.0″ mean anything more than the name of a conference yet? I don’t like to admit it, but it’s starting to. When people say “Web 2.0″ now, I have some idea what they mean. And the fact that I both despise the phrase and understand it is the surest proof that it has started to mean something.

[Dennis Howlett]

who cares?

[martin]

i like that: it really is about time to try to give hard definitions. all these usual "but it's a buzzword"-rants become tiring indeed, and most of the other posts are very technology-centered (like the wikipedia entry). but also putting the stress on user/collaboration/creativity is not enough, me thinks. i still miss (a bit) a more abstract "semiotic/systemic" approach,which i think would have to consider all the implications of "autopoietic" microcontent/metacontent - but, yes, i have to admit i am an academic ...

[judson]

There is no more a web 2.0 then there is a tv 2.0 or a radio 2.0. Everything is a version of everything else.

[Andrew]

An interesting overview. I agree with you regarding Web 2.0 as a return to the original principles of Tim Berners Lee's work - his book 'Weaving the Web' gives a good overview of this.

If I have any frustration with using 'Web 2.0' as a descriptor is that it implies newness, and with it a rejection of the old model of few publishers and a large number of viewers. From my perspective I see more similarities than differences between Web 2.0 and the world you and Armstrong described in 1997 in 'Net Gain'.

Certainly some of the tools are new but the type of interaction they enable is similar. I have also yet to see information showing that a larger proportion of people are using the new Web 2.0 tools than used the discussion groups etc. that were available in 1997. Are we simply seeing a movement from one type of tools to another by a certain group?

Can any increase be due to the differing web usage of different demographic groups? If we look at how those entering the workforce now have used the web it has always been in terms of collaboration. This can be seen in how they demand organisational communications and even how they respond to management.