Dave Weinberger recently led a session on the authority of the wikipedia at the Berkman Center. Dave discussed the concept of “negotiated” truth. The various contributors may get into an editing war over the contents of an article such as one on a political figure. The only way these editing wars can stop is for the various parties to reach a common agreement on a version that attempt to provide a “neutral point of view” and/or an acknowledgement of the various views. I think this makes the wikipedia a good resource for topics in which there are multiple opinions. There is a bit of "wisdom of crowds" working here.
The wikipedia definition of Web 2.0 is a classic example. It is full of such terms as “To some extent…as used by its proponents… others argue” and admits that “a consensus on its exact meaning has not yet been reached.” Nevertheless, the entry provides a balanced view of the term and serves as a good introduction.
Personally I think it is being too PC to object to the term as it provides a useful label for the changes in the web toward greater participation and connection. 70,900,000 Google entries agree to use the term even if to deride it in some cases. I do know what the second choice is to describe this significant shift.
The last time I looked the wikipedia said the following about Web 2.0 and much more in a very long article that is likely growing.
• The transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality, thus becoming a computing platform serving web applications to end users
• A social phenomenon referring to an approach to creating and distributing Web content itself, characterized by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use, and "the market as a conversation"
• A more organized and categorized content, with a far more developed deeplinking web architecture
• A shift in economic value of the web, possibly surpassing that of the dot com boom of the late 1990s
• A marketing term to differentiate new web businesses from those of the dot com boom, which due to the bust now seem discredited
• The resurgence of excitement around the possibilities of innovative web applications and services that gained a lot of momentum around mid 2005.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.