The “What is Web 2.0” article was a bit hard for me to tackle. I understand the basic concepts of the internet, but many of the terminologies used were a bit confusing. I didn’t realize there were distinctions in the web (web 1.0 and 2.0) their purposes. Throughout this article it is noted the changes and evolution of the web and the different elements that are offered. O’Reily explains Web 2.0 through the contrasting of Google and Netscape. One of the big arguments he makes is that Google is more prevalent to today’s technology than that of Netscape with data as a significant feature. The internet will continue to evolve as we discover and learn more about what opportunities there are to expand. Web 1.0 was the starting point and led the way for 2.0; in the same way web 2.0 is going to continue to propel us into future ideas and technologies.
Due to the nature of the class it was very interesting to discover that blogging is considered a feature of the Web 2.0 era. Blogging, simply put, is a way of making diary entries online. O’Reily even ventures to say that through blogging, connections with others are made as a means that RSS presents. As stated in the article, “RSS has become perhaps the single most widely deployed web service because of its simplicity.” I find this interesting because I have found setting up my blog and figuring it out quite challenging. A large reason for this is because I am a hands-on and visual learner in which I need to both see how to do something and do it at the same time in order for me to fully grasp the concept.
What is Web 2.0 does an excellent job of recognizing all the aspects of the web and going into some detail to help expand any novice’s knowledge on the subject. Personally I hadn’t heard of a large portion of the examples given by O’Reily, but feel that these are important for everyone to know as background information of a tool that people use every day. The diversity and wide range that the article covers is interesting and important to understand. This is also where my critique comes in. Since this article covers so much, it vaguely touches each topic and doesn’t fully explain one thing. The whole notion “I know a little about a lot but not a lot about one thing.” I’m not implying that I think the author is knowledgeable about everything he discussed, just that it would have been easier to comprehend and digest if there was more information on each thing.