Google Blogoscoped


Simple Wikipedia Explains Web 2.0  (View post)

Mambo [PersonRank 10]

Tuesday, November 7, 2006
17 years ago4,087 views

Web 2.0 should be BANNED from every encyclopedia every known to man. God I hate the phrase... [PersonRank 0]

17 years ago #

"Second Life ... has degenerated into an orgy of porn, debauchery and pseudo-homosexual activity"

why does that make it a failure :)

/pd [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

SL is the "wet dream of" those who have no life ??

But, I find it strange that SL is becoming a main stream for adverstising!!

"The wikipedia" [PersonRank 0]

17 years ago #

The article was created on Nov 4, it's mainly the ravings of a single IP.

Eytan Buchman [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

Say what you want about the article...but it is beautifully written. Now where did I put my Doritos?

Kent Dodds [PersonRank 1]

17 years ago #

It's been altered:

Web 2.0 is what people call new ways of showing or using things on the Internet. To people who use the Internet, wikis and blogs are Web 2.0. Some think that Wikipedia is a great example of "Web 2.0". Web 2.0 is mostly about user-generated content.

This short article needs someone to make it better.
You can help Wikipedia by adding to it.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

New quote from Simple Wikipedia
> Web 2.0 is what people call new ways of showing
> or using things on the Internet.

They should rephrase this to "showing or using things on teh Internets."

Seriously, am I totally deluded for thinking that most people who don't have a perfect grasp of English would be happier with a clear & concise written *normal Wikipedia* – where they'll have to learn a new word every now and then – OR read up on Web 2.0 in reports of *their own language*... instead of getting an oversimplified, patronizing article like this?

Reminds me of the mother who always answered for her young child. When my mother asked her "why don't you let your kid speak?" the other mother answered, "oh, he didn't yet learn how to speak well."

Niraj Sanghvi [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

Philipp, I agree. It seems pointless to have to describe things twice, and it would make much more sense to spend that time ensuring the normal wikipedia article is understandable. The normal articles should be easy to read anyways...they shouldn't be full of complicated jargon that would confuse even fluent English speakers. It seems like this solution is more extreme than necessary.

Eric Cranston [PersonRank 3]

17 years ago #

When is this "Web 2.0" buzzword gonna die? The web doesn't have versions...and if it did we'd be on version 6 at least by now. Rather we need to use terms like "modern web design" but whatever.

Forum home


Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About


This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!