Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Web 2.0' Most Popular Wikipedia Entry

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the we-have-to-pay-oreilly-for-using-the-term-here dept.

The Internet 116

theodp writes "It came as no surprise to Tim O'Reilly that Nielsen BuzzMetrics found 'Web 2.0' the most cited Wikipedia article of the year (as measured by blog mentions). After all, says Tim, 'the Wikipedia article on Web 2.0 is indeed pretty darn good.' IIRC, the Web 2.0 Trademark Scandal was also good for a citation or two. BTW, the material in the article crediting O'Reilly & Co. with originating the term 'Web 2.0' was first contributed by '209.204.147.33', which is coincidentally an O'Reilly IP address."

cancel ×

116 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Press Release provides incentive to manipulate? (3, Insightful)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474286)

After seeing the "Top Blogs Mention 'Wikipedia'" section in the press release, I wonder how many SEO obsessed bloggers will insert the word 'wikipedia' over and over in their posts (or link to it in every post). I'll bet by next year, the # of mentions of the word 'wikipedia' will go up by at least 10X due to this reason alone.

Re:Press Release provides incentive to manipulate? (2, Insightful)

Nik13 (837926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475072)

Yeah, I bet most of these linkers are from sites catering to web designers trying to explain the latest fad.

As far as traffic to different encyclopedias, it's not surprising at all. I have the Encarta DVD (and older versions of Britannica and Universalis) and see no reason to consult it online - I don't think I've ever tried it once. But my main reason to use wikipedia is because it has *DIFFERENT CONTENT* - not because it's available online or for free. e.g. Encarta has articles about classic music and such, whereas on wikipedia you'll find lots of articles over other types of music and musicians that you wouldn't normally find elsewhere, like say, Chris Barnes (from death metal groups CC & SFU) -- try finding things like that on Encarta or Britannica! But then again, the DVD-based encyclopedias have videos, games, sounds, lots of photos and other multimedia content you won't find online on wikipedia, not counting specialized versions like MS Student, which my kids also love. They have different content and content types, so they *COMPLEMENT* each other. They're not directly competing IMO (even though others will surely disagree on that one).

Re:Press Release provides incentive to manipulate? (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481378)

Wikipedia has pretty good content on "classic" encyclopedia entries, but I agree with you that that's not why I use Wikipedia. I doubt Encarta or Britannica have an article about "Heroes" (the TV show) or a 15 page article on "The Legend of Zelda".

Speak the language (1)

Excelsior (164338) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481418)

Expecting the average geek to give consideration to non-Web 2.0 mediums is asking an awful lot. When slashdot-reading geeks see a post such as yours, this is what we hear:

Blah blah web-designers blah blah blah wikipedia blah blah blah-blah DVD blah wikipedia blah blah MS (work of the devil) Student blah blah blah.

Re:Press Release provides incentive to manipulate? (2, Insightful)

Jazon Bladen (938809) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475676)

"Web 2.0" is another word for "Our website is better than your website." I remember someone trying to explain it as "Websites that rely on user submitted content" but then I thought, isn't the entire Internet made up of user submitted content? Oh well, at least I can enjoy my 2006 2.0 in peace.

Re:Press Release provides incentive to manipulate? (1)

Lordpidey (942444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17478430)

Wow, these must be the same people that have bought a pirate ship to help keep global warming down.

as a matter of fact... (5, Funny)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474288)

It came as no surprise to Tim O'Reilly that Nielsen BuzzMetrics found 'Web 2.0' the most cited Wikipedia article of the year (as measured by blog mentions).

As a matter of fact, its popularity has tripled in the last six months.

Re:as a matter of fact... (1)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475752)

That creates an interesting positive correlation between elephant population and Web 2.0 citations. And global warming.

Clearly the Elephants are bringing about Web 2.0, and their faeces is causing Global Warming.

Problem solved, where's my prize?

Re:as a matter of fact... (2, Funny)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#17478002)

In other news, Slashdot's new most popular tag is "slownewsday"..

Web 2.0 (5, Funny)

shirizaki (994008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474290)

Same crap, now with rounded edges and fading effects.

Re:Web 2.0 (1)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474560)

Yes, but your statement is worthless without a 'link. [slashdot.org]

Re:Web 2.0 (5, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474810)

Yes, but your statement is worthless without a 'link. [slashdot.org]

Yes, but your statement is worthless without a working 'link

Re:Web 2.0 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17474894)

Yes, but your statement is worthless without a working 'link
Yes, but your statement is worthless without correcting his link [slashdot.org] .

Re:Web 2.0 (2, Informative)

Basehart (633304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474936)

Thanks Rik - you saved the day (sheesh, talk about kicking a link when it's down):

link [wikipedia.org]

Re:Web 2.0 (1)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474950)

Yes, but your statement is worthless without a 'link. [slashdot.org]

Yes, but your statement is worthless without a working 'link
Well, both of our statements are worthless until we get a working link. :) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Web 2.0 (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474820)

Significant recent developments on the web: (1) the rise of video, (2) the fall of http's transaction-based processing model, (3) a huge increase in user-authored websites (myspace, youtube...)

Do these add up to "Web 2.0"? I don't care.

Re:Web 2.0 (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474930)

I have to agree with you and Tim Berners-Lee and say that this is nothing more than a buzzword. "Web 1.1" maybe, but until it's based on a new protocols and possibly "pipes", it does not deserve a complete, whole number upgrade, or at least not an even number.

Re:Web 2.0 (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475376)

I'd consider Ajax a whole new protocol, compared to the original intention of the Web. Many really great 2.0 web pages are hardly recognizable as "Web" at all. Here I'm thinking of Google Maps in particular, though to a lesser degree with the Ajax-y webmail clients and threading pages like Digg.

The user-contributed part of Web 2.0, on the other hand, is largely orthogonal to that. It does seem more evolutionary than revolutionary, though Wikipedia has accomplished some things that I wouldn't have imagined possible under the original intent of the Web, despite being built exclusively with the old protocols.

So I'd say there's a bigger difference between "Web 2.0" and 1.0 than between Firefox 2.0 and 1.0.

If you're looking for incremental steps between 1.0 and 2.0 to call 1.1, they certainly exist: the upgrades in HTML, CSS, cookies, the addition of plugins. I'd call forms+PHP the real 1.1, since the original Web was essentially a static concept. (I suppose you might call the stuff prior to that "Web Beta", since it really wasn't ready for prime time, and the first great generation of web companies couldn't have done without it.)

Re:Web 2.0 (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475568)

I'd consider Ajax a whole new protocol
Except for the fact that it uses the exact same version of HTTP, right?

Re:Web 2.0 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17475708)

But it makes the "back" button useless... hence a FULL version upgrade.

Re:Web 2.0 (1)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 7 years ago | (#17477090)

Please read up on the obscure English words "layers" and "abstraction".

Re:Web 2.0 (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#17477262)

"Web" wasn't just HTTP; it was HTTP+HTML. There existed no web which was just pure HTTP. I suspect whatever technology replaces HTTP won't be called Web anything-point-oh; it'll be an entirely different technology with radically different capabilities.

In addition, it's hardly the same version of HTTP. In protocol terms it's 1.1; you can't implement Ajax on top of HTTP 1.0. The streaming, back-and-forth, hold-open HTTP is a very different use. It's the same only to the degree that it's a very general way of connecting to a port and getting a socket, which is now asynchronously two-way rather than simply request-response.

Re:Web 2.0 (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17477924)

I'd consider Ajax a whole new protocol, compared to the original intention of the Web. Many really great 2.0 web pages are hardly recognizable as "Web" at all. Here I'm thinking of Google Maps in particular, though to a lesser degree with the Ajax-y webmail clients and threading pages like Digg.

I meant a different protocol like TCP, IP, and Netware, are all different protocols. I would think at least require IPv6.

No; it's Web *ME* (1)

newr00tic (471568) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475936)

..make that Web Millennium Edition (ME), and everyone will associate it with it's current [popular] incarnation.

Re:Web 2.0 (1)

Cctoide (923843) | more than 7 years ago | (#17477580)

It's no longer "crap", it's eColi. Get with the times.

Re:Web 2.0 (1)

End Program (963207) | more than 7 years ago | (#17479776)

I wish I had some mod points left to bump you up. A perfect description of web 2.0!

Re:Web 2.0 (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481028)

Well no kidding it's the most popular item on wikipedia. Everyone has to look it up because no one really knows exactly what it is.

Are the traditional resources ... (1)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474356)

days numbered? For years I have refrained from using printed materials, for various reasons other than the obvious knocking on door memories of door-to-door sales people shucking monthly deliveries of big books. The ease, the vastness, the updating, the decentralized wikipedia (at least in its editors), the accuracy, what more can I say? I enjoy wikipedia for more than the novelty factor which is huge in of itself. It just works, and it is donatoware (currently begging for money now, so if you like it, I recommend you do something to show how much you like it) which to me directly reflects its useful factor to an individual and audience alike. I can't help but think the relative stranglehold of the Brittanica and like sources are numbered. Good job WikiPedia, keep up the quality, you deserve what you are getting. [all this is of course from an uneducated 9th grade dropout :)]

Re:Are the traditional resources ... (2, Insightful)

solevita (967690) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474660)

You think Wikipedia is good? You should try a library!

Re:Are the traditional resources ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17474938)

I know this was supposed to be funny, but...

Let us analyze what he liked about wikipedia and compare that to a library.

"The ease, the vastness, the updating, the decentralized wikipedia (at least in its editors), the accuracy, what more can I say?"

Ease: Libraries are extremely poorly indexed for search in comparison to wikipedia, there is a timeout on document access and only one person can access the document at once (though the range of people is relatively small). Sometimes the books are even heavy or on high shelves. Retaining personal offline copies of information or excerpts is relatively difficult.

Vastness: You might have him there, but if he thinks wikipedia's vastness is sufficient (as he seems to), the additional vastness may just increase search complexity unnecessarily.

Updating: Libraries are notoriously bad for this.

Decentralized: Sort of.

Accuracy: Kind of a wash. Both are subject to vandalism. A library is more liable to contain articles that do not even strive for a neutral point of view.

Re:Are the traditional resources ... (2, Insightful)

solevita (967690) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475230)

I wasn't going for humour. Let's expand my point a little.

Now, I'm used to a pretty good library service (I've got a Masters degree from a pretty big university), but I think that my point will stand for a whole range of libraries.

Ease: I've found libraries to be very easy to search - if you can work google, you can work the majority of library database search tools. Sure, you may not be able to do in text searching for a book (although you can for most online journal services), but you can use google to do that or, now this is a shocker, do some reading yourself. In short, finding stuff in books is easy. As for books being heavy, or on a high shelf; if you really have used a computer for so long that your body has withered away, I think books will be the last of you worries. I'd be much more concerned about walking to the library and getting mugged on route.

Vastness: No contest.

Updating: If I wanted something that wasn't in stock, it could be ordered. More often, however, a nearby library would have the book and I'd get it on inter-library loan. Basically, if a book came out, I could get a copy very quickly.

Decentralised: Much more than en.wikipeida.org.

Accuracy: You seem to be confusing "accuracy" and "neutrality". Almost nothing is published from a neutral viewpoint - you can't blame this on libraries. The problem with Wikipedia is that it claims to be neutral when it clearly is not. As with searching for things in books, the key to making judgements concerning the accuracy or neutrality of a book is to actually read it, then some more on the same subject.

Wikipedia might be great for people that have no intention or requirement to actually read things; it might be great for getting quick definitions of some TLA you've not encountered before, but it will never replace a library. For people that have to read things and produce credible pieces of work, Wikipedia is a joke: It will never replace traditional publishing. That was what I was trying to get across in my original post. If you found it funny, however, then even better!

Re:Are the traditional resources ... (1)

Yath (6378) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476712)

The problem with Wikipedia is that it claims to be neutral when it clearly is not.


It does not make such a claim. It strives to be neutral. Most of Wikipedia's editors are aware that the goal can never be met, but that it is worth the effort anyway.

You might as well castigate scientists for trying to discover all knowledge, when they cannot hope to ever succeed.

Re:Are the traditional resources ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17475006)

the accuracy

This must be some other wikipedia project that I've never heard of!

Seriously, though, Wikipedia is shit; there's nothing else to say about it.

I wouldn't say "accurate" without qualifiers. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476764)

The ease, the vastness, the updating, the decentralized wikipedia (at least in its editors), the accuracy ...

I was with you right up until that point. Wikipedia is great, but its accuracy is a little questionable. I'd say that in general, Wikipedia is a good idea of what a reasonably well-educated adult probably thinks is true. But despite attempts to enforce citing sources, there's quite a bit of misinformation on topics; generally not outright lies per se, but stuff that seems OK on first glance, but is either a mis-simplification of a topic or a pure misunderstanding.

I'm not sure this is even really a criticism of Wikipedia. It's quite useful as it is, and I don't think that an "expert system" as others have proposed would be superior. It just means one has to keep in mind when reading WP that it is, in general, written and edited by non-experts, and thus shouldn't be taken too far. But for that matter, neither should any general-reference Encyclopedia.

In general, I'm a fan of Wikipedia, and I think that the fluidity of the information that it provides might actually help the next generation of researchers, who are growing up with it in their lives. Once you realize how easy it is for anyone to change an article in Wikipedia, it really drills in the importance of going directly to primary sources. By allowing students to access primary source information more quickly, it lets them do better research, faster. This is all assuming, of course, that teachers are good about punishing students who try to use WP as a primary source itself. (Unless the topic at hand is public perception or meta-critique of social issues, where WP might be appropriate as an actual source.) Where past generations might have accepted what was written in an encyclopedia as basically true and inviolate, people growing up with Wikipedia will probably be more quick to realize the controversiality of many issues that a dead-tree reference can render into (false) black and white. When you read an article in Britannica, you can't look at the Discussion page and see what kind of editorial fistfight went into its creation; with Wikipedia, you can.

Re:Are the traditional resources ... (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480902)

The ease, the vastness, the updating, the decentralized wikipedia (at least in its editors), the accuracy, what more can I say?

Yes, Wikipedia is good, yes most of us use it once a day. BUT... When your actually in need of a real reference, one that is actually authoritative (meaning you can find the author, and his name isn't "skittlesthepony10"), and one that isn't going to change once a week to match the whims of some egotistical inside group. I have found errors in several articles, and when you edit them you trounce on some idiots ego, and they revert it. Ego is more important than accuracy in some cases.

If you need a serious reference you still need a good specialty encyclopedia, a library, or even the Britannica.

That said Wikipedia is a great launchpad for research, and following links for hours is oddly cathartic. I generally waste more time on wikipedia then I even do on slashdot, come to think of it, it is like slashdot for the antisocial.

I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17474360)

...that it's awesome that a publicly [boobies] edited entity like wikipedia is cited so often. [hi mom]

Wikipedia is amazing (4, Insightful)

syphax (189065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474382)


I've come to realize that I almost always use Wikipedia as my first stop when researching something I want to learn about. I realized that I was scanning search results for a wikipedia link (now I just go straight to the wikipedia search), and chose that first.

Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't always accurate. Shocking, on a site where anyone can pretty much edit anything. But the breadth of content, and the relatively uniform structure, and the reasonable level of accuracy make Wikipedia my preferred initial stop for most casual research.

It really is an amazing phenomenon.

goes to show, (1)

jrwr00 (1035020) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474386)

if its the most visted article, and its now locked, thats how the world should work!,

Re:goes to show, (1)

Saikik (1018772) | more than 7 years ago | (#17477750)

no no silly, you're supposed to build a wall around it- duh

Web 2.0 is self propagating!! (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474406)

My god, blogs are pushing web 2.0, and web 2.0 is made up in part of blogs ("blag juice")!

Ladies and gents, I think we've finally found the business model version of a perpetual motion machine!! Let's all invest before anyone looks to closely! Should I just make the cheque out to Tim O'Reilly directly?

Because no one understand it. (5, Insightful)

shagymoe (261297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474426)

Everyone runs to Wikipedia to figure out what the hell Web 2.0 is because nobody knows. I'm not sure the people editing know. As far as I can tell it's just AJAX...so why not call it AJAX? There's no damn VERSIONS of the web!

Re:Because no one understand it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17474586)

hell, even AJAX isn't even always AJAX. Some frameworks implement it with JSON. Then we're dealing with AJAJ... but that doesn't sound as shiny.

The important thing is that Web 2.0 remains a fuzzy, incoherent idea, that way almost everyone can feel like they know something about it!

Bullshit Bingo (2, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474718)

Everyone runs to Wikipedia to figure out what the hell Web 2.0 is because nobody knows. I'm not sure the people editing know. As far as I can tell it's just AJAX...so why not call it AJAX? There's no damn VERSIONS of the web!

Ah, but the article claims not that it's the most researched term, but the most *cited*! That means loads of morons are citing Web 2.0, talking about Web 2.0, and claiming to be web 2.0, as if it was an actual cohesive thing. Or that it was in any substantial way different than Web 1.0, or Web 0.95 RC2.

It's just buzzword (or bullshit) bingo. These kiddies will be the same ones talking about paradigm shifting your out of the box thinking in a proactive way, or whatever the buzzwords are in 20 years when they have jobs.

Re:Bullshit Bingo (2, Informative)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474924)

It's just buzzword (or bullshit) bingo.

Otherwise known as marketing... Because ultimately that's all Web 2.0 is: a marketing gimmick. Somehow, you're still using Web 1.0, when here stands the bright new, shiny, multi-functional Web 2.0. It's still all servers running software, just with different software. There's nothing ground-breaking or earth-shattering here, like the first vestiges of a global AI consciousness springing full-blown. This smacks of all those "Upgrade to AOL *.0" campaigns of yesteryear.

Re:Bullshit Bingo (1)

Flowmaster (934102) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475740)

It's just buzzword (or bullshit) bingo. These kiddies will be the same ones talking about paradigm shifting your out of the box thinking in a proactive way, or whatever the buzzwords are in 20 years when they have jobs.

Clearly.

I took an informal poll of my fellow sysadmins at work, and not one could define "Web 2.0." More importantly, none cared.

Not that I've tried it, but I'm fairly sure that if I took the same poll of the marketing department, everyone within earshot would sip their Starbucks thoughtfully and launch into a 20 minute speech - utterly devoid of content, naturally.

Re:Bullshit Bingo (1)

escay (923320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17478314)

as if it was an actual cohesive thing
you were so close. that is precisely the reason why the word/phrase 'web 2.0' is useful. the WWW as we know it today has come a long way from arbitrarily arranged blue underlined text on a white page to something equally simple yet more functional (not always but that is the idea). many improvements have made this possible - CSS based design, AJAX, RSS feeds - and it's not just technologies but also the type and function of websites that we have: blogs, wikis, social sites - in fact, the change in Web is in so many different ways that there is no one simple word to describe it all. Web 2.0 is (an arbitrary phrase, agreed) the most cohesive term (more so because of its repeated usage than actual semantics) that holds all these 'improvements' to the old web like glue and describes the current state of the WWW.

there is always a need for words that provide succinctness - that is one of the points of having a vocabulary. Web 2.0 is a buzzword, but it is also a buzzword that is useful to describe many things in a mere 6 characters. if you can come up with something that does that and sounds more meaningful too, put it up on wikipedia.

and what the hell is bullshit 'bingo' anyway? were you trying to say 'lingo' but just had too many B's in your bonnet?

Re:Bullshit Bingo (1)

rworsnop (1012283) | more than 7 years ago | (#17479178)

"Bullshit Bingo" is a British term. All you had to do was Google it.

Re:Bullshit Bingo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17479956)

Or Wikipedia it [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Bullshit Bingo (1)

Nappa48 (1041188) | more than 7 years ago | (#17478402)

Well screw you then, you can keep your old web 1.0!
I will be happy using my intarweb 2.0 with the changing and the speed and the AJAX!

Re:Because no one understand it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17475290)

I've always understood it as the general migration of desktop applications to the web. Yes, it may involve a lot of AJAX technique, but personally, I've always thought it seems clear. Just my opinion.

Re:Because no one understand it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17475546)

Everyone runs to Wikipedia to figure out what the hell Web 2.0 is because nobody knows.
The best way I've found to describe what people call "Web 2.0" is the encouragement of users to become contributors rather than primarily consumers.

Web 2.0 = Hype (2, Interesting)

cephalien (529516) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474580)

Even if it -wasn't- the most seen term on Wikipedia; it's going to be now.

Why is this news?

FOSS / Subscription Model (2, Insightful)

Genocaust (1031046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474792)

It should come as no surprise, then, that actual encyclopedias such as Britannica and Columbia have nowhere near the web readership as their Wiki counterpart these days.
Oh, well, that couldn't possibly be at all related to Wikipedia being free and the others charging. No, not at all.

There's one other factor, too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17477014)

Actually, in addition to being slightly cheaper, it has the words "DON'T PANIC" on the cover.

That really helped it edge out the competition.

Different beasts (1)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474836)

It should come as no surprise, then, that actual encyclopedias such as Britannica and Columbia have nowhere near the web readership as their Wiki counterpart these days

Definetely true, but you must remember these are two beasts that ultimately serve different purposes:

The Britannica focuses on proper form, accuracy, and thoroughness;
Wikipedia focuses on brevity (sometimes), collaboration, and timeliness.

But most importantly for an average user, the ability to click-through to hundreds of interesting topics in a single sitting is the most attractive part of Wikipedia.

Re:Different beasts (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17475440)

But most importantly for an average user, the ability to click-through to hundreds of interesting topics in a single sitting is the most attractive part of Wikipedia.
 
And secondly it has the words Don't Panic inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover.. oh wait.

Re:Different beasts (1)

iabervon (1971) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476052)

Wikipedia is actually extremely verbose. It's just structured in such a way that having many many short articles isn't too difficult to use. So Wikipedia has the space for a detailed article on the 40th US Congress, and Britannica doesn't. This may seem insignificant, but if you're trying to find out the political conditions surrounding the impeachments of US presidents, it's important, particularly if you also want similar information on the outcome of the election following the impeachment trial.

No accounting for mass acceptance (1)

xeromist (443780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474844)

I bet O'Reilly is beside himself. He probably thought up this drivel an hour before his lecture. Now he's got the most referenced article on Wikipedia? Not bad publicity for coming up with something so lame.

Doesn't suprise me. (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474928)

If you ask 50 different people what Web 2.0 means you'll get 50 mostly different answers. To be clear you need refer to a common definition and that's what the Wiki definition provides. If West Coast Offense were a tech term, it would probably be right up there with Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 Is Hilarious (5, Funny)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474996)

From Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka at somethingawful.com:

Question: What is Web 2.0?
  Answer: Web 2.0 is a combination of Web 1.0 and being punched in the dick.

Question: How do I know I'm using a website / service / product that is officially "Web 2.0" and not actually "Web 1.0" with various patches and enhancements added to it?
Answer: Web 2.0 is made obvious by the addition of completely and highly unnecessary bells and whistles that don't do anything besides annoy you and make life more complicated. If Web 1.0 was the equivalent of reading a book, Web 2.0 is reading a book while all the words are flying around and changing pages as the book rotates randomly and sets your hands on fire. Also there's this parrot that keeps on flying towards your head in repeated attempts to gouge out your eyes.

Question: I read about this one website in Wired Magazine. Is that Web 2.0??
Answer: Oh definitely. Wired won't even mention Web 1.0 sites. Every single site in their magazine is at least Web 2.0. Sometimes they're even up to Web 45.2 (such as www.ebutts-and-credit-reports-delivered-via-carrie r-pidgeon.com)!

Question: My roommate said he "digged" a "wikipedia entry" about "the blogosphere" which mentioned "podcasting" as a viable form of "crowdsourcing."
Answer: Your roommate is a faggot. Also, this wasn't technically a question.

---------
You have to watch out for those parrots.

Re:Web 2.0 Is Hilarious (1)

xeromist (443780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475270)

Ah, thanks for posting this. I needed a good laugh. Whenever I hear web 2.0 I get this nervous tick and the desire to send O'Reilly a box of slaughtered kittens. I feel much better now!

No Thanks, I'm Holding Out for Web 3.0 (2, Funny)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475082)

Here is best explanation of what exactly Web 2.0 is that I've seen :) http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4366 [somethingawful.com]

Re:No Thanks, I'm Holding Out for Web 3.0 (2, Funny)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475354)

Holding out? I'm already using the Web3.0.2 beta. It's great.

Re:No Thanks, I'm Holding Out for Web 3.0 (1)

shashark (836922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17478150)

I read that issue of Wired which stated Jesus didn't exist, because the Bible crowdsourced their podcast to the blogosphere via Ruby on Rails to Ezekiel 2.0.

Hype 3.0 (1)

Ranger (1783) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475198)

will be 2007's top Wikipedia entry followed closely by Buzzword Compliant 1.5.

2.0? (1)

fatty ding dong (1028344) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475258)

It appears to me that consumers are stupid and want their inter-tubes labeled with updated versions like AOL had back in the day. All I want to know is: How long before I start getting free Web 2.0 coasters... I mean CDs in the mail?

Correct spelling (2, Funny)

Vadim Makarov (529622) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475274)

It should come as no surprise, then, that actual encyclopedias such as Britannica and Columbia

Should have read "It should come as no surprise, then, that {other|traditional|old|smaller} encyclopedias such as Britannica and Columbia"

Straight BULLSHIT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17475868)

*BULLSHIT*, SneakyPedia can never be compared to real encyclopedias, and everyone with half-a-brain will always know that.

Sneaky-Pede will remain the same crap as the ones who edit, and speak in favour of it, end of story.

Re:Straight BULLSHIT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17476980)

Seems to me, that a long time ago, it made sense to contact respected researchers, form a company, pay them, etc. and bind it all up into books and sell the results. Surely, this would do much to improve learning and spread knowledge. Well. They did their job too well, because people raised on old fashioned encyclopedias learned to make the web, which allowed research of comparable quality to be assembled so affordably that it was "too cheap to meter".

Maybe some day, something will come along and make the web look just as anachronistic as those old books look now. What, I can't imagine. Neither could Brittanica. All they could do is stand in the mall, and refuse to tell me how much their books cost, no matter how many times I asked. I won't shed any tears if they go out of business. As for the other Encyclopedia people, I will be a bit sad--especially the World Book company. We had a set of 1959 World Books, which captured an interesting slice of time in their entries for "Negroe" and "Nuclear Power". We also had a set of Funk & Wagnels that were purchased one-by-one from a grocery store promotion. Plainly, these old books reached out to the masses and spread knowledge in their day; but their day is done. aitsitdaerstteidri.

Re:Correct spelling (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476772)

I'm not expert at the English language, but couldn't it also be argued that encyclopedias should be encyclopediae? Oh.. maybe that i near the end throws things off... anyone know?

Aikon-

Uptime pretty good as well... (2)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475556)

A year ago it was a pain in the ass to edit a wikipedia article, as the servers were always going down. Uptime is much improved now. The fund drive shows that a lot of people (and a few corporations) are finding it useful to fund this public experiment.

Of course (1)

MrNougat (927651) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475626)

Of course blogs would reference an article which references them. That sig I have, I've had it a while. Web 2.0 is the art of being completely circular and self-referential.

2.0 (1)

extern_void (1041264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475674)

Wow, cool, amazing! But the term "web 2.0" is marketing.
Web 2.0 is nothing more than our actual web evolution.
For example once in the past we had rudimentary cars and now we have more
modern cars _but_ they are _still_ cars.

Most viewed (3, Interesting)

arvindn (542080) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475886)

The most viewed pages [wikimedia.org] stats present a very different story. Ignoring wikipedia-related pages and recently featured articles, the top few are:

Wii
Sex
World War II
United States
Christmas
Deaths in 2006
Naruto
Sexual intercourse
Pornography
The Holocaust
List of big-bust models and performers
List of sex positions

Sad.

Padded article count in Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17476198)

An article just published today says that over 58% [mercatornet.com] of Wikipedia's articles are fake, empty, simple lists of other articles, or garbage...

Re:Padded article count in Wikipedia (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476510)

An article just published today says that over 58% [mercatornet.com] of Wikipedia's articles are fake, empty, simple lists of other articles, or garbage...
That article also downplays the significance of Wikipedia because people without internet access and those with no time can't edit it. It then proceeds to make selective out-of-context quotes whilst trying to prove its "point". Of course, he never actually states what that point is.

A look at the final sentence of that article shows his motivation, and -- at least in my case -- causes one to question his motives:

John Bambenek is a columnist and freelance writer who blogs at Part-Time Pundit. His biography was deleted from Wikipedia by its editors, but at one stage it falsely listed him as a child sex offender for over an hour and a half.

Re:Padded article count in Wikipedia (2, Funny)

discord5 (798235) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482382)

but at one stage it falsely listed him as a child sex offender for over an hour and a half.

Damn, they removed it? I'll just have to edit it again.

Web 3.0 (1)

WiseMuse (1039922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476240)

I love Web 2.0. I'm all about Web 2.0. Web 2.0 feels like Easter! I can't wait for Web 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and especially Web 3.0. Web 3.0 much better. Web 3.0 will be like Christmas!

Of course it is... (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476244)

... because nobody really knows what Web 2.0 means.

Kinda obvious... (1)

J0nne (924579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476266)

Since nobody really knows what the hell Web 2.0 is supposed to mean, it's no surprise people keep looking up.

Besides, not unlike Wikipedia, the definition of web 2.0 changes constantly anyway ;-).

Well no surprise in that (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476476)

After all, web 2.0 is mostly that - a BUZZ.

Frankly... (1)

Dracolytch (714699) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476522)

The wikipedia entry is really popular because nobody, even the people using the term, really knows what the fuck web 2.0 is.

~D

incest (2, Informative)

peter303 (12292) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476664)

Wikipedia is a Web 2.0 application due to its collaborative nature.

I imagine (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476724)

I imagine it's the most popular wikipedia entry for several reasons:

1) There's no good source elsewhere on the Internet which describes what, precisely, "Web 2.0" is.
2) Nobody knows what Web 2.0 is
3) Everyone who thinks they know what Web 2.0 is has a different definition.

I'm a moderately experienced programmer with experience with AJAX - and I had no freakin' clue what Web 2.0 was until this past summer (thereabouts) when my brother (who is a bit more trendy than I, and an animator) told me to make his web site 'like digg or something - you know, web 2.0' (not the most descriptive person, but there you have it). Half an hour later I'd figured out what people tend to think of Web 2.0..

I hate that acronym. It's worse than blog, plog, or any of the other asinine web oriented and symantically awkward terms.

"'Web 2.0' Most Popular Wikipedia Entry"? (2, Funny)

baKanale (830108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17476920)

Well of course it is! It's just been slashdotted!

Web 2.0 is all about s2s (2, Insightful)

brian_252 (25259) | more than 7 years ago | (#17477128)

People who think sites like Wordpress blogs aren't Web 2.0 because it has rounded corners and faded headers just don't get it. It's Web 2.0 because it connects your blog to Amazon Wishlist, Cafe Press, Flickr (14 plugins), Last.fm, Netflix, Yahoo, Akismet, etc. http://wp-plugins.net/ [wp-plugins.net] lists 182 plugins that connect to external tools.

Web 2.0 is not about the user interface. It's about the server to server interface.

It's not just social networking as in Orkut. But if your profile on a phpBB website listed your friends as you have them listed in Orkut, that's Web 2.0.

Yay, slashdot doesn't suck anymore! (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#17477332)

Man, am I glad the kind of losers that do this kind of fad-chasing bullshit have left. Slashdot is so much better since digg stole most of the retards.

Re:Yay, slashdot doesn't suck anymore! (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480646)

I think it would be good if Slashdot members could take an online technical test in any field related to science/IT. The results of this could be used to give a score, allowing the nerds amongst us here the ability to apply a weighting to posts from those with low scores.

Take back Slashdot from the peasants!

Best 2.0 website? Pray 2.0 ;) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17477860)

Think you've seen everything 2.0? Think again... haha

http://www.pray20.com/ [pray20.com]

Gotta love Slashdot (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 7 years ago | (#17477862)

It's amusing whenever there's an article mentioning something like "Web 2.0" or "AJAX" or "blogs" that the Slashdot community jumps over itself in condemning the stupidity of said terms; however, I would bet that a vast majority of the /. crowd are actually responsible for either creating or improving or somehow working on said terms. You're telling me no one here actively develops and promotes flashy new web technologies, or runs blogs, or any of the other new-fangled gee-whiz aspects of the tech world? Puhleeze...

Fuc4?N! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17478408)

fucking surprise, As those non gay, nearly two years when IDC recently big deal. Death

Coincidentally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17478760)

...my "Boss 2.0" cites "Web 2.0" almost as much as "Agility" and "Operational Excellence". Then again, I can still sense the "Pointy Hair 1.0" underneath the new "Toupee 2.0".

Google (1)

annex1 (920373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17479056)

If Google is to ever become the "World's hub of information", they need to seriously consider purchasing Wikipedia. I can only imagine the possibilities that would open up. It would also mean a Tonne of funding for wikipedia.

Of course! (1)

lucat (814182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482216)

No one understands what the hell it is...

Gonna be more popular (1)

MrIbanez (1030050) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482258)

Well, its obvious that the article entry just became even more popular due to this article. The thing that makes wikipedia work so well is that it has entries on everything. Whereas Encyclopaedia Britannica most likely won't have an entry on a death metal band called "Rotting Christ".

I was just thinking. (1)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482350)

They had all these new visitors. But in the last year I moved, and got a new job. So my home ISP stuff appears to be new to them, as it does when I syrf in from work. But I'm not new.

Google Zeitgeist (1)

Puk (80503) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482752)

Also the #2 "define" search in Google Zeitgeist 2006 [google.com] .

-puk
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>