Shouldn't that be "Web 2.0 tools"?
Deciding what to call all those accounts has been delaying the posting of this
column. The term "web 2.0" has established itself as a buzzword for
just about any tool that we operate not from our desktops, but from our browser,
such that there's perhaps no way, or perhaps even reason, to distinguish between
it and the more general "online". What's more, the term probably never
had a distinct, clearly definable, meaning that made determining what was "web
2.0", and what "web 1.0" more of a science than an art. Two
years ago I noted a few characteristics, acknowledging as well that a few
months earlier, in perhaps the first classic article about Web 2.0, Tim
O'Reilly had listed more. In that article O'Reilly admitted that the demarcation
points between the first and second web were blurry at best, but the term, obvious,
has stuck.
If that's the case, however, why am I calling the tools I'm referring to here
"online" rather than "Web 2.0"? Primarily because one of the
more-or-less defining characteristics of Web 2.0 tools is their social dimension.
Del.icio.us is Web 2.0 because when we bookmark for ourselves, we're also helping
others, and we turn to that tool not only for our own bookmarks that we store there,
but because we understand that we profit by having access to what others store.
Though I'm often happy to take part in many of these social aspects of online
tools, my primary interest in a meta-tool for online accounts is being able to
access my own materials.
Go to: One tool to rule them all?