Editing Web 2.0 (section)

==History==
{{Main|History of the World Wide Web}}

===Web 1.0===
Web 1.0 is a [[retronym]] referring to the first stage of the [[World Wide Web]]'s evolution, from roughly 1989 to 2004. According to Graham Cormode and Balachander Krishnamurthy, "content creators were few in Web 1.0 with the vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content".<ref>{{Cite journal|first=Graham Cormode|last=Balachander Krishnamurthy|title=Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0|journal=First Monday|volume=13|issue=6|date=2 June 2008|url=http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972|access-date=23 September 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025113431/http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972|archive-date=25 October 2012|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref> [[Personal web page]]s were common, consisting mainly of static pages hosted on [[Internet Service Provider|ISP]]-run [[web server]]s, or on [[free web hosting service]]s such as [[Tripod (web hosting)|Tripod]] and the now-defunct [[GeoCities]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php/Geocities|title=Geocities – Dead Media Archive|website=cultureandcommunication.org|access-date=2014-09-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140524003656/http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php/Geocities|archive-date=2014-05-24|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/163765/So_Long_GeoCities_We_Forgot_You_Still_Existed.html|title=So Long, GeoCities: We Forgot You Still Existed|date=2009-04-23|access-date=2014-09-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141017090359/http://www.pcworld.com/article/163765/So_Long_GeoCities_We_Forgot_You_Still_Existed.html|archive-date=2014-10-17|url-status=live}}</ref> With Web 2.0, it became common for average web users to have social-networking profiles (on sites such as [[Myspace]] and [[Facebook]]) and personal blogs (sites like [[Blogger (service)|Blogger]], [[Tumblr]] and [[LiveJournal]]) through either a low-cost [[web hosting services|web hosting service]] or through a dedicated host. In general, content was generated dynamically, allowing readers to comment directly on pages in a way that was not common previously.{{Citation needed|date=September 2010}}

Some Web 2.0 capabilities were present in the days of Web 1.0, but were implemented differently. For example, a Web 1.0 site may have had a [[guestbook]] page for visitor comments, instead of a [[comment section]] at the end of each page (typical of Web 2.0). During Web 1.0, server performance and bandwidth had to be considered—lengthy comment threads on multiple pages could potentially slow down an entire site. [[Terry Flew]], in his third edition of ''New Media,'' described the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 as a

{{Blockquote|text="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" website content using [[Keyword (Internet search)|keyword]]s ([[folksonomy]])."|sign=|source=}}

Flew believed these factors formed the trends that resulted in the onset of the Web 2.0 "craze".<ref>{{Cite book
  |title=New Media: An Introduction
  |last=Flew  |first=Terry
  |year=2008
  |edition=3rd
  |publisher=Oxford University Press  |location=Melbourne
  |page=19
}}</ref>

====Characteristics====
Some common design elements of a Web 1.0 site include:<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Viswanathan|first1=Ganesh|last2=Dutt Mathur|first2=Punit|last3=Yammiyavar|first3=Pradeep|title=From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and beyond: Reviewing usability heuristic criteria taking music sites as case studies|url=https://www.academia.edu/8381037|date=March 2010|place=Mumbai|access-date=20 February 2015|series=IndiaHCI Conference|archive-date=21 March 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220321085849/https://www.academia.edu/8381037|url-status=live}}</ref>
* Static pages rather than [[dynamic HTML]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-10.htm|title=Is there a Web 1.0?|date=January 28, 2008|website=HowStuffWorks|access-date=February 15, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190222191357/https://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-10.htm|archive-date=February 22, 2019|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
* Content provided from the server's [[File system|filesystem]] rather than a relational database management system ([[RDBMS]]).
* Pages built using [[Server Side Includes]] or [[Common Gateway Interface]] (CGI) instead of a [[web application]] written in a [[dynamic programming language]] such as [[Perl]], [[PHP]], [[Python (programming language)|Python]] or [[Ruby (programming language)|Ruby]].{{clarify|date=April 2021}}
* The use of [[HTML 3.2]]-era elements such as [[Framing (World Wide Web)|frames]] and tables to position and align elements on a page. These were often used in combination with [[spacer GIF]]s.{{Citation needed|date=September 2010}}
* Proprietary [[HTML]] extensions, such as the [[blink element|&lt;blink&gt;]] and [[marquee tag|&lt;marquee&gt;]] tags, introduced during the [[First Browser War|first browser war]].
* Online [[guestbook]]s.
* [[GIF]] buttons, graphics (typically 88×31 [[pixel]]s in size) promoting [[web browser]]s, [[operating system]]s, [[text editor]]s and various other products.
* HTML forms sent via [[email]]. Support for [[server side scripting]] was rare on [[shared server]]s during this period. To provide a feedback mechanism for web site visitors, [[mailto]] forms were 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. The popularity and complications of the mailto protocol led browser developers to incorporate [[email client]]s into their browsers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch13s04.html|title=The Right Size of Software|website=www.catb.org|access-date=2015-02-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150617002902/http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch13s04.html|archive-date=2015-06-17|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Web 2.0===
The term "Web 2.0" was coined by [[Darcy DiNucci]], an [[information architecture]] consultant, in her January 1999 article "Fragmented Future":<ref name="DiNucci"/><ref>Aced, Cristina. (2013). [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266672416_Web_20_the_origin_of_the_word_that_has_changed_the_way_we_understand_public_relations Web 2.0: the origin of the word that has changed the way we understand public relations.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220416181119/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266672416_Web_20_the_origin_of_the_word_that_has_changed_the_way_we_understand_public_relations |date=2022-04-16 }}</ref>

{{blockquote|text="The Web we know now, which loads into a [[Web browser|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.]] introduced its first web-capable [[personal digital assistant]] (supporting Web access with [[Wireless Application Protocol|WAP]]), DiNucci saw the Web "fragmenting" into a future that extended beyond the browser/PC combination it was identified with. She focused on how the basic information structure and hyper-linking mechanism introduced by [[HTTP]] would be used by a variety of devices and platforms. As such, her "2.0" designation refers to the next version of the Web that does not directly relate to the term's current use.

The term Web 2.0 did not resurface until 2002.<ref>Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. RSS: INJAN (It's not just about news). Blog. Blog Data Space. August 21 [https://web.archive.org/web/20091128090508/http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace/kidehen@openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com's%20BLOG%20&#91;127&#93;/241 OpenLinkSW.com]</ref><ref>Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. Jeff Bezos Comments about Web Services. Blog. Blog Data Space. September 25. [http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/index.vspx?id=373 OpenLinkSW.com] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100212074724/http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/index.vspx?id=373 |date=2010-02-12 }}</ref><ref name="Knorr, Eric 2003">Knorr, Eric. 2003. The year of Web services. CIO, December 15.</ref> Companies such as [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]], Facebook, [[Twitter]], and [[Google]], made it easy to connect and engage in online transactions. Web 2.0 introduced new features, such as [[multimedia]] content and interactive web applications, which mainly consisted of two-dimensional screens.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kshetri |first=Nir |date=2022-03-01 |title=Web 3.0 and the Metaverse Shaping Organizations' Brand and Product Strategies |url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9770453 |journal=IT Professional |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=11–15 |doi=10.1109/MITP.2022.3157206 |s2cid=248546789 |issn=1520-9202 |access-date=2022-12-02 |archive-date=2022-10-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221031180615/https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9770453/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Kinsley and Eric focus on the concepts currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a universal, standards-based integration platform".<ref name="Knorr, Eric 2003"/> In 2004, the term began to popularize when [[O'Reilly Media]] and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, [[John Battelle]] and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform", where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business for you".<ref name="O'Reilly, Tim 2004">O'Reilly, Tim, and John Battelle. 2004. Opening Welcome: State of the Internet Industry. In San Francisco, California, October 5.</ref> They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. O'Reilly and Battelle contrasted Web 2.0 with what they called "Web 1.0". They associated this term with the business models of [[Netscape]] and the [[Encyclopædia Britannica Online]]. For example,

{{blockquote|"Netscape framed 'the web as platform' in terms of the old software [[paradigm]]: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the 'horseless carriage' framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a 'webtop' to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.<ref>O'Reilly, T., 2005.</ref>"}} In short, Netscape focused on creating software, releasing updates and bug fixes, and distributing it to the end users. O'Reilly contrasted this with [[Google]], a company that did not, at the time, focus on producing end-user software, but instead on providing a service based on data, such as the links that Web page authors make between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer Web searches based on reputation through its "[[PageRank]]" algorithm. Unlike software, which undergoes scheduled releases, such services are constantly updated, a process called "the [[perpetual beta]]". A similar difference can be seen between the [[Encyclopædia Britannica Online]] and [[Wikipedia]] – while the Britannica relies upon experts to write articles and release them periodically in publications, Wikipedia relies on trust in (sometimes anonymous) community members to constantly write and edit content. Wikipedia editors are not required to have educational credentials, such as degrees, in the subjects in which they are editing. Wikipedia is not based on subject-matter expertise, but rather on an adaptation of the [[Open-source software|open source]] software adage [[Linus' Law|"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"]]. This maxim is stating that if enough users are able to look at a software product's code (or a website), then these users will be able to fix any "[[Bug (computing)|bugs]]" or other problems. The Wikipedia volunteer editor community produces, edits, and updates articles constantly. Web 2.0 conferences have been held every year since 2004, attracting [[entrepreneur]]s, representatives from large companies, tech experts and technology reporters.

The popularity of Web 2.0 was acknowledged by [[You (Time Person of the Year)|2006 ''TIME magazine'' Person of The Year]] (''You'').<ref>Grossman, Lev. 2006. Person of the Year: You. December 25. [http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20061225,00.html Time.com] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090923143700/http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20061225,00.html |date=2009-09-23 }}</ref> That is, ''[[Time (magazine)|TIME]]'' selected the masses of users who were participating in content creation on [[social network]]s, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites.

In the cover story, [[Lev Grossman]] explains:

{{blockquote|"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."}}

====Characteristics====
Instead of merely reading a Web 2.0 site, a user is invited to contribute to the site's content by commenting on published articles, or creating a [[user account]] or [[user profile|profile]] on the site, which may enable increased participation. By increasing emphasis on these already-extant capabilities, they encourage users to rely more on their browser for [[user interface]], [[application software]] ("apps") and [[file storage]] facilities. This has been called "network as platform" computing.<ref name="oreilly" /> Major features of Web 2.0 include [[social networking]] websites, self-publishing platforms (e.g., [[WordPress]]' easy-to-use blog and website creation tools), [[Tag (metadata)|"tagging"]] (which enables users to label websites, videos or photos in some fashion), [[Like button|"like" buttons]] (which enable a user to indicate that they are pleased by online content), and [[social bookmarking]].

Users can provide the data and exercise some control over what they share on a Web 2.0 site.<ref name="oreilly" /><ref name="hinchcliffe">{{cite web
|url=http://web2.wsj2.com/the_state_of_web_20.htm
|title=The State of Web 2.0
|publisher=Web Services
|first = Dion | last = Hinchcliffe
|work=Cloudflare
|date=2006-04-02
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070515032339/http://web2.wsj2.com/the_state_of_web_20.htm
|archive-date=2007-05-15
|access-date=2006-08-06
}}</ref> These sites may have an "architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.<ref name="graham" /><ref name="oreilly" /> Users can add value in many ways, such as uploading their own content on blogs, consumer-evaluation platforms (e.g. [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] and [[eBay]]), news websites (e.g. responding in the comment section), social networking services, media-sharing websites (e.g. YouTube and [[Instagram]]) and collaborative-writing projects.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Perry|first1=Ronen|last2=Zarsky|first2=Tal|date=2015-08-01|title=Who Should Be Liable for Online Anonymous Defamation?|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2671399|language=en|location=Rochester, NY|ssrn=2671399}}</ref> Some scholars argue that [[cloud computing]] is an example of Web 2.0 because it is simply an implication of computing on the Internet.<ref>[SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=732483 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220112052626/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=732483 |date=2022-01-12 }} Wireless Communications and Computing at a Crossroads: New Paradigms and Their Impact on Theories Governing the Public's Right to Spectrum Access], Patrick S. Ryan, Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 239, 2005.</ref> [[File:How to edit a page Edit box.png|thumb|Edit box interface through which anyone could edit a [[Wikipedia]] article]]

Web 2.0 offers almost all users the same freedom to contribute,<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://www.academia.edu/15831013 |title=Learn More About Web 2.0 |publisher=academia.edu |access-date=2015-10-14 |last1=Pal |first1=Surendra Kumar |archive-date=2021-08-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814192542/https://www.academia.edu/15831013 |url-status=live }}</ref> which can lead to effects that are varyingly perceived as productive by members of a given community or not, which can lead to emotional distress and disagreement. The impossibility of excluding group members who do not contribute to the provision of goods (i.e., to the creation of a user-generated website) from sharing the benefits (of using the website) gives rise to the possibility that serious members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and [[Free rider problem|"free ride"]] on the contributions of others.<ref>Gerald Marwell and Ruth E. Ames: "Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. I. Resources, Interest, Group Size, and the Free-Rider Problem". ''The American Journal of Sociology'', Vol. 84, No. 6 (May, 1979), pp. 1335–1360
</ref> This requires what is sometimes called [[radical trust]] by the management of the Web site.

[[Encyclopædia Britannica|Encyclopaedia Britannica]] calls [[Wikipedia]] "the epitome of the so-called Web 2.0" and describes what many view as the ideal of a Web 2.0 platform as "an egalitarian environment where the web of social software enmeshes users in both their real and virtual-reality workplaces."<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Hosch |first1=William L. |last2=Tikkanen |first2=Amy |last3=Ray |first3=Michael |last4=Cunningham |first4=John M. |author-link4=John M. Cunningham |last5=Dandrea |first5=Carlos |last6=Gregersen |first6=Erik |last7=Lotha |first7=Gloria |date=2023-04-13 |title=Wikipedia |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wikipedia |access-date=2023-05-11 |publisher=[[Encyclopedia Britannica]] |language=en |archive-date=2022-01-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220121012545/https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wikipedia |url-status=live }}</ref>
According to Best,<ref>Best, D., 2006. Web 2.0 Next Big Thing or Next Big Internet Bubble? Lecture Web Information Systems. Techni sche Universiteit Eindhoven.</ref> the characteristics of Web 2.0 are rich user experience, user participation, [[dynamic content]], [[metadata]], [[Web standards]], and [[scalability]]. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom,<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=EWRPGLVJ53OW2QSNDLPCKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=199702353&_requestid=494050
|title=Amid The Rush To Web 2.0, Some Words Of Warning&nbsp;– Web 2.0&nbsp;– InformationWeek
|publisher=www.informationweek.com
|access-date=2008-04-04
|author1=Greenmeier, Larry
|author2=Gaudin, Sharon
|name-list-style=amp
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080421221546/http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=EWRPGLVJ53OW2QSNDLPCKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=199702353&_requestid=494050
|archive-date=2008-04-21
|url-status=live
}}
</ref> and [[collective intelligence]]<ref>O'Reilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, p. 30</ref> by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0. Some websites require users to contribute [[user-generated content]] to have access to the website, to discourage "free riding".[[File:Mass Effect Wiki Collaboration.png|thumb|A list of ways that people can volunteer to improve Mass Effect Wiki on [[Wikia]], an example of content generated by users working collaboratively]]The key features of Web 2.0 include:{{citation needed|date=November 2017}}
# [[Folksonomy]] – free classification of information; allows users to collectively classify and find information (e.g. [[Tag (metadata)|"tagging"]] of websites, images, videos or links)
# Rich [[user experience]] – dynamic content that is responsive to user input (e.g., a user can "click" on an image to enlarge it or find out more information)
# [[Crowdsourcing|User participation]] – information flows two ways between the site owner and site users by means of evaluation, review, and online commenting. Site users also typically create [[user-generated content]] for others to see (e.g., [[Wikipedia]], an online encyclopedia that anyone can write articles for or edit)
# [[Software as a service]] (SaaS) – Web 2.0 sites developed [[API]]s to allow automated usage, such as by a [[Web app|Web "app"]] ([[software application]]) or a [[mashup (web application hybrid)|mashup]]
# [[Eternal September|Mass participation]] – near-universal web access leads to differentiation of concerns, from the traditional Internet user base (who tended to be [[hacker]]s and computer hobbyists) to a wider variety of users, drastically changing the audience of internet users.