clipped from: en.wikipedia.org   
I would say that Web 2.0 is a buzzword that has been created during a time when many new internet technologies have been introduced. The new popular technologies (podcasting, blogs, ajax, rss, etc) got a lot of people excited and there seemed to be a "new wave" of web technologies which seems like it could change the primary ways people use the internet. Marketing people and tech journalists looked for a word to uniquely identify this new wave in internet trends, and came up with Web 2.0. However it's not like its a new web, its part of the continuing evolution of technology and many of these technologies in fact have been in development for awhile. Most likely the term Web 2.0 will just fade away and not have any staying power as a term. In essence, I think "Web 2.0" is an event in the general conscious of tech journalists... and not an actual object, as evidenced by the difficulty in defining it in terms of objects it covers. Journalists each have their own definitions for it they promote. By the way, reading those terms in the graphic on the article really reminded me of this video from timanderic.com (the guys who do Tom Goes to the Mayor on Adult Swim). - Corby 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thanks for pointing at that movie . excellent :) Kosmar 11:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Quibble on definition of Web 1.0


The current text says "The original conception of the web (in this context, labeled Web 1.0) comprised static HTML pages that were updated rarely, if at all". Actually, Tim Berners-Lee's original conception was of a web of documents that were subject to continuous, collaborative authorship and refinement (something like WP, in fact). It is true that the original implementation of the Web comprised static HTML pages. But I'm just a drive-by editor; I make the suggestion for someone more invested in this article. David Brooks 16:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)