Web 2.0's Battle with Labelling Theory

For all its detractors, labelling theory reminds us that society values different words or identifiers differently.  We see this time and again in all aspects of life.

I think Web 2.0 is currently being held to a certain set of assumptions because it is called Web 2.0.  After a decade of browserdom we are all pretty much vested in what "Web" is.  It is the vision of how we could markup files in a uniform way and use that to provide messages to a large number of usually anonymous visitors.  As time has gone on, we've bolted CSS, RSS, XML, AJAX, Javascript, Flash and a bunch of other technologies to it to extend the platform.

But Web 2.0 isn't really about the platform.  It's about the activities.  The "Web" of Web 2.0 isn't the "Web" of days before.  2.0's "Web" is pervasive computing - all sorts of devices receiving and transmitting data.  Phones, in-vehicle computers, appliances, home security systems, smart homes systems, traffic signals, real estate databases ... all these things are Web 2.0, but have no real connection with HTML pages or Internet Explorer.

Dion Hinchcliffe's been pushing my buttons lately.  Today he created this post and includes this tag of provocation.

OK, don't agree?  Please straighten me out.  Why does Web 2.0 matter (or not) to you?

In the post Dion lists his five reasons - none of which have to do with the classic "world wide web".  They deal with ease of use, usefulness, elegance, and emergence.  In my post on driving yesterday, the Web 2.0 applications envisioned or mentioned did not directly link to the popular web, they did deal with Dion's elements however.

Yet, Dion also perpetuates the WorldWideWebness of Web 2.0 in this article by saying

"BTW, I will also use this moment to state that Web 2.0 is a terrible name for this new vision of Web-based people-centric software.  Except for every other name we have at the moment (for example, like "next generation of the Web").  So I will continue to use Web 2.0 until something better comes along."

Why is Dion and almost everyone looking for a better term than Web 2.0?  Because intuitively we know that our vision reaches beyond the browser, but "Web 2.0" ties us irrevocably to it.

One of the best points is the "Ballistic Trajectory Velocity" of the term itself.  Web 2.0 has traction, or inertia, or mojo - call it what you will.  Web 2.0 is likely here to stay and will likely continue to confuse event its more ardent devotees.

(Also check out Ken Yarmosh's Post for why you need Web 2.0)

Comments

[Ken Yarmosh]

"But Web 2.0 isn't really about the platform. It's about the activities."

While there is a lot of truth in 'the web as platform' I see it as limiting. A broader 'definition' is needed. Good thoughts.