by Adrian Keys

Created on: December 19, 2006   Last Updated: May 12, 2007

Web 2.0 is obviously a "sexy" word. It's the reigning buzz of buzz words used to describe everything about the internet and technology. Apparently though, as I am now finding out, the term is ill defined, and it seems, most of us use it loosely without even beginning to understand its real meaning. Big surprise. Turns out, there have been intellectual gatherings to define and elucidate the term for lesser folks.

Thus my conclusionany dubious interpretation of Web 2.0 must have been orchestrated by the very people who claimed to have coined the term. If you don't believe, take a look at the material that was supposedly presented at any of the series of conferences aimed at clearly defining the term.

The only thing clear to me from these presentations is the general consensus of the Presenters themselves: They all agreed that "far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity"but unfortunately, everything elsethe supposedly intellectual masterpiece, is all fuzzynebulous at best.

In fact, the presentations remind me only of the vague, complex and circuitous language reminiscent of one of those rather difficult case studies we were forced at "knifepoint" to do in my MBA course years ago. Those were never moments of great clarityso you get the drift.

To me, the simplicity of the term is embodied in how the term was coined. Apparently Media Live International - producers of technology trade shows and conferences - and Tim O'Reilly- a Publisher and "activist for open source, open standards, and sensible intellectual property laws" - wanted to have a conference about the Web after the Internet "Bubble" and could not decide what to call it, so they came up with Web 2.0. and without question, they should have left it at that. Anytime people decide that they want to have a conference about simple terminology, then we should start to worry.

So, my advice is, if you are just coming to the Web 2.0 "dance" like I am, don't bother with Tim O'Reilly's intellectual wranglingdo like I didconfuse not thyselfbut instead, focus on the simplicity of the termaccept it for what is and nothing else!

The irony about all of this is that the Tim O'Reilly and the other Presenters accepted the simplicity of the term but in the process of needlessly attempting to bring intellectual logic and meaning to what could only have been an imprisoned audience, only served to fuel the dubiousness of the terminology and its usage.

Thankfully, unlike the intellectually bound Presenters at the series of conferences, Wikipedia understands the simplicity of the term. There, Web 2.0 is described as "a second generation of Internet-based services - such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies - that emphasize online collaboration and sharing among users". This I can live with. I could also have lived with the Presenter's general consensus. (The beauty about all of this is that the Wikipedia definition could have been posted by O'Reilly and his team).

Notwithstanding, when put in these terms, the concept is clear in mind. Web 2.0 is the rebirth of the Web a renewal after the punishing bust of the late 90s and early 2000s. It's about the continued evolution of a set of technologies that has seen the literal explosion of, user generated content, social networking sites, forums, bogs and now video blogs. It's about the success of MySpace, FaceBook, TechCrunch, Digg and YouTube. It's an incredible comeback storya second coming that is erasing our memories of the failures of recent past and charting a new and exciting course never before seen nor imagined.

Learn more about this author, Adrian Keys.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.