Editing Web 2.0 (section)

==Criticism==
Critics of the term claim that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of the [[World Wide Web]] at all, but merely continues to use so-called "Web 1.0" technologies and concepts:<ref name="developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee" />
* First, techniques such as [[Ajax (programming)|Ajax]] do not replace underlying protocols like [[Hypertext Transfer Protocol|HTTP]], but add a layer of abstraction on top of them.<!--

-->
* Second, many of the ideas of Web 2.0 were already featured in implementations on networked systems well before the term "Web 2.0" emerged. [[Amazon.com]], for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in 2002.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Amazon Web Services API
|work=O'Reilly Network
|url=http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1707?wlg=yes
|author-link=Tim O'Reilly|first=Tim|last=O'Reilly
|date=2002-06-18
|access-date=2006-05-27
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060613235806/http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1707?wlg=yes
|archive-date=2006-06-13
}}</ref><br>Previous developments also came from research in [[computer-supported collaborative learning]] and [[computer-supported cooperative work]] (CSCW) and from established products like [[Lotus Notes]] and [[Lotus Domino]], all phenomena that preceded Web 2.0. [[Tim Berners-Lee]], who developed the initial technologies of the Web, has been an outspoken critic of the term, while supporting many of the elements associated with it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/business/2006/09/7650/|title=Tim Berners-Lee on Web 2.0: "nobody even knows what it means"|quote=He's big on blogs and wikis, and has nothing but good things to say about AJAX, but Berners-Lee faults the term "Web 2.0" for lacking any coherent meaning.|date=September 2006|access-date=2017-06-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170708091023/https://arstechnica.com/business/2006/09/7650/|archive-date=2017-07-08|url-status=live}}</ref> In [[CERN|the environment where the Web originated]], each workstation had a [[dedicated IP address]] and always-on connection to the Internet. Sharing a file or publishing a web page was as simple as moving the file into a shared folder.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206txt.html|title=developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee|website=[[IBM]] |date=2006-08-22|access-date=2007-06-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070701130847/http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206txt.html|archive-date=2007-07-01|url-status=live}}</ref><!--

-->
* Perhaps the most common criticism is that the term is unclear or simply a [[buzzword]].  For many people who work in software, version numbers like 2.0 and 3.0 are for [[software versioning]] or hardware versioning only, and to assign 2.0 arbitrarily to many technologies with a variety of real version numbers has no meaning.  The web does not have a version number.  For example, in a 2006 interview with [[IBM]] developerWorks podcast editor Scott Laningham, Tim Berners-Lee described the term "Web 2.0" as jargon:<ref name="developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee">
{{cite web |url=http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206txt.html |title=DeveloperWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee |website=[[IBM]] |date=2006-07-28 |access-date=2012-08-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120821185101/http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206txt.html |archive-date=2012-08-21 |url-status=live }}
</ref><blockquote>"Nobody really knows what it means... If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along... Web 2.0, for some people, it means moving some of the thinking [to the] client side, so making it more immediate, but the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be... a collaborative space where people can interact."</blockquote><!--

-->
* Other critics labeled Web 2.0 "a second bubble" (referring to the [[Dot-com bubble]] of 1997–2000), suggesting that too many Web 2.0 companies attempt to develop the same product with a lack of [[business model]]s. For example, ''[[The Economist]]'' has dubbed the mid- to late-2000s focus on Web companies as "Bubble 2.0".<ref>{{cite news |title=Bubble 2.0 |newspaper=The Economist |url=http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_QQNVDDS |date=2005-12-22 |access-date=2006-12-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061119042722/http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_QQNVDDS |archive-date=2006-11-19 |url-status=live }}</ref>
<!-- ... -->
<!-- I commented this out as it has been proved invalid, actually wrong, due to subsequent events. If someone thinks it should be included with some sort of caveat, do so. Leaving it as is undermines the intent of the section, which is provide valid counter views [[Venture capital]]ist [[Josh Kopelman]] noted that Web 2.0 had excited only 53,651 people (the number of subscribers at that time to [[TechCrunch]], a Weblog covering Web 2.0 startups and technology news), too few users to make them an economically viable target for consumer applications.<ref>{{cite web |title=53,651 |author-link=Josh Kopelman |first=Josh |last=Kopelman |work=Redeye VC |url=http://redeye.firstround.com/2006/05/53651.html |date=2006-05-11 |access-date=2006-12-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061220220523/http://redeye.firstround.com/2006/05/53651.html |archive-date=2006-12-20 |url-status=live }}</ref> -->
<!-- Critics have cited the language used to describe the hype cycle of Web 2.0<ref>{{cite web |title= Gartner 2006 Emerging Technologies Hype Cycle |url= http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=495475 |access-date= 2008-04-07 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20071029154814/http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=495475 |archive-date= 2007-10-29 |url-status= dead }}</ref> as an example of [[Techno-utopianism|Techno-utopianist]] rhetoric.<ref>{{cite web |author-link=Michael Zimmer (academic)|first=Michael|last=Zimmer |title="Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0", Special issue of ''[[First Monday (journal)|First Monday]]'', 13(3), 2008. [http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/view/263/showToc UIC.edu]}}</ref> No! This is a misunderstanding of the Gartner Emerging Technologies Hype Cycle! Gartner's concept is applicable to ANY emerging technology. It is isn't a pejorative, or criticism per se, merely an acknowledgment of introduction, gathering momentum, then steady-state which is either success or failure. It doesn't mean that Web 2.0 is "hype". This needs to be reworded or removed. Until then, I have commented it out --><!--

-->
* In terms of Web 2.0's social impact, critics such as [[Andrew Keen]] argue that Web 2.0 has created a cult of digital [[narcissism]] and amateurism, which undermines the notion of expertise by allowing anybody, anywhere to share and place undue value upon their own opinions about any subject and post any kind of content, regardless of their actual talent, knowledge, credentials, biases or possible hidden agendas. Keen's 2007 book, ''[[Cult of the Amateur]]'', argues that the core assumption of Web 2.0, that all opinions and user-generated content are equally valuable and relevant, is misguided. Additionally, ''[[Sunday Times]]'' reviewer John Flintoff has characterized Web 2.0 as "creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity: uninformed political commentary, unseemly home videos, embarrassingly amateurish music, unreadable poems, essays and novels... [and that Wikipedia is full of] mistakes, half-truths and misunderstandings".<ref>{{cite news | title=Thinking is so over | url=http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article1874668.ece | location=London | work=The Times | first=JohnPaul | last=Flintoff | date=2007-06-03 | access-date=2009-06-05 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090507212657/http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article1874668.ece | archive-date=2009-05-07 | url-status=dead }}</ref> In a 1994 ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' interview, [[Steve Jobs]], forecasting the future development of the web for personal publishing, said:<blockquote>"The Web is great because that person can't foist anything on you—you have to go get it. They can make themselves available, but if nobody wants to look at their site, that's fine. To be honest, most people who have something to say get published now."<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/4.02/jobs_pr.html|title=Steve Jobs: The Next Insanely Great Thing|magazine=Wired|first=Gary|last=Wolf|access-date=2015-04-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150418003143/http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/4.02/jobs_pr.html|archive-date=2015-04-18|url-status=live}}</ref></blockquote> Michael Gorman, former president of the [[American Library Association]] has been vocal about his opposition to Web 2.0 due to the lack of expertise that it outwardly claims, though he believes that there is hope for the future.:<ref>{{cite web|last=Gorman|first=Michael|title=Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part 1|url=http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/06/web-20-the-sleep-of-reason-part-i/|access-date=26 April 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629070412/http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/06/web-20-the-sleep-of-reason-part-i/|archive-date=29 June 2011|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref><blockquote>"The task before us is to extend into the digital world the virtues of authenticity, expertise, and scholarly apparatus that have evolved over the 500 years of print, virtues often absent in the manuscript age that preceded print".</blockquote><!--

-->
* There is also a growing body of critique of Web 2.0 from the perspective of [[political economy]]. Since, as Tim O'Reilly and John Batelle put it, Web 2.0 is based on the "customers... building your business for you,"<ref name="O'Reilly, Tim 2004"/> critics have argued that sites such as Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are exploiting the "free labor"<ref>{{cite journal|last=Terranova|first=Tiziana|title=Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy|journal=Social Text|year=2000|volume=18|issue=2|pages=33–58|doi=10.1215/01642472-18-2_63-33|s2cid=153872482}}</ref> of user-created content.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Peterson|first=Soren|title=Loser Generated Content: From Participation to Exploitation|journal=First Monday|year=2008|volume=13|issue=3|url=http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2141/1948|access-date=2012-04-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025111135/http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2141/1948|archive-date=2012-10-25|url-status=live}} {{cite book|last=Taylor|first=Astra|title=The People's Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age|publisher=Metropolitan Books|year=2014|isbn=9780805093568}}</ref> Web 2.0 sites use Terms of Service agreements to claim perpetual licenses to user-generated content, and they use that content to create profiles of users to sell to marketers.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Gehl|first=Robert|title=The Archive and the Processor: The Internal Logic of Web 2.0|journal=New Media and Society|year=2011|volume=13|issue=8|pages=1228–1244|doi=10.1177/1461444811401735|s2cid=38776985}}</ref> This is part of increased surveillance of user activity happening within Web 2.0 sites.<ref>{{cite book|last=Andrejevic|first=Mark|title=iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era|year=2007|publisher=U P of Kansas|location=Lawrence, KS|isbn=978-0-7006-1528-5}}</ref> Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society argues that such data can be used by governments who want to monitor dissident citizens.<ref>{{cite web|last=Zittrain|first=Jonathan|title=Minds for Sale|url=http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2009/11/berkwest|publisher=Berkman Center for the Internet and Society|access-date=13 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111112061331/http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2009/11/berkwest|archive-date=12 November 2011|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref> The rise of [[AJAX]]-driven web sites where much of the content must be rendered on the client has meant that users of older hardware are given worse performance versus a site purely composed of HTML, where the processing takes place on the server.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wa-aj-web20/|title=Accessibility in Web 2.0 technology|website=[[IBM]] |quote=In the Web application domain, making static Web pages accessible is relatively easy. But for Web 2.0 technology, dynamic content and fancy visual effects can make accessibility testing very difficult.|access-date=2014-09-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402110510/http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wa-aj-web20/|archive-date=2015-04-02|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Accessibility]] for disabled or impaired users may also suffer in a Web 2.0 site.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sfsu.edu/access/webaccess/webtwo.html|title=Web 2.0 and Accessibility|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140824234544/http://www.sfsu.edu/access/webaccess/webtwo.html|archive-date=24 August 2014|quote=Web 2.0 applications or websites are often very difficult to control by users with assistive technology.}}</ref><!--

-->
* Others have noted that Web 2.0 technologies are tied to particular political ideologies. "Web 2.0 discourse is a conduit for the materialization of neoliberal ideology."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Marwick|first=Alice|title=Status Update: Celebrity, publicity and Self-Branding in Web 2.0|year=2010|url=http://www.tiara.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/marwick_dissertation_statusupdate.pdf|access-date=2017-07-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170722122938/http://www.tiara.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/marwick_dissertation_statusupdate.pdf|archive-date=2017-07-22|url-status=live}}</ref>  The technologies of Web 2.0 may also "function as a disciplining technology within the framework of a neoliberal political economy."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Jarrett|first=Kylie|title=Interactivity Is Evil! A Critical Investigation of Web 2.0|journal=First Monday|year=2008|volume=13|issue=3|doi=10.5210/fm.v13i3.2140|url=http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/4580/1/KJ_Interactivity_Evil.pdf|access-date=2019-12-13|archive-date=2017-11-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171103063733/http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/4580/1/KJ_Interactivity_Evil.pdf|url-status=live |doi-access=free }}</ref><!--

-->
* When looking at Web 2.0 from a cultural convergence view, according to Henry Jenkins,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jenkins |first1=Henry |title=Convergence Culture |journal=The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies |date=2008 |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=5–12 |doi=10.1177/1354856507084415 |doi-access=free }}</ref> it can be problematic because the consumers are doing more and more work in order to entertain themselves. For instance, Twitter offers online tools for users to create their own tweet, in a way the users are doing all the work when it comes to producing media content.