Naming the baby: Slate too smart? Try the Post.
The Washington Post ran a nifty little article last week about new names for The Artist Formerly Known As Web 2.0. But something seemed familiar — especially to Slate, who ran the same piece last month. In fact, it's time for another fun chart!
| Slate | Washington Post |
|---|---|
| O'Reilly began touting the phrase in 2003. | I first heard software engineers use "Web 2.0" to describe an emerging type of software in 2003, but its meaning was broadened after technology publisher Tim O'Reilly adopted the phrase and made it the title of an industry conference in October 2004. |
| People use Web 2.0 to mean different, often conflicting things. There are at least three incompatible definitions floating around. | To be clear, my beef is with the idea of using one term to cover the whole shebang of what's happening online. |
| Publicists and self-promoters invoke Web 2.0 whenever they want to tag something as new, cool, and undiscovered. | That's where "Web 2.0" beckons. Pundits are seizing on it as a convenient term to describe everything happening online, especially new social behaviors involving user participating and sharing. |
| Ajax, tag clouds, and wikis are basic components of many collaborative sites. In general, Web 2.0 tools are free, easy to master, and easy to interconnect. Google Maps + Wikipedia = Placeopedia! | Now blogs, podcasts and vlogs are expanding into unfamiliar terrain as people combine them with other Internet tools and explore novel ways to share the resulting material. |
| Compare Web 2.0 to other attempts to brand the zeitgeist: "Do It Together," "The Read/Write Web," "Small Pieces, Loosely Joined," or Newsweek's pick, "the Living Web." Imagine asking your boss for $3,000 to go to the Living Web Conference. | "The Living Web," a Newsweek cover story proclaimed last week. "The Lego era," a New York Times article called it. Both compete with "Web 2.0," a phrase that peppers the conversations of geeks and venture capitalists involved in Web development. |
| "This could be a big story for you, Paul!" | If I had a nickel for every "Web 2.0" product pitch I've received since then, I could retire rich right now. |
Hm, yes, that's why it's familiar — the Post piece is the article I'd need if Slate was too savvy for me.
Web Words Of the Day [WaPo]
Web 2.0 doesn't live up to its name [Slate]
