Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Businesses

'Web 2.0' Most Popular Wikipedia Entry 116

Posted by Zonk from the we-have-to-pay-oreilly-for-using-the-term-here dept.
theodp writes "It came as no surprise to Tim O'Reilly that Nielsen BuzzMetrics found 'Web 2.0' the most cited Wikipedia article of the year (as measured by blog mentions). After all, says Tim, 'the Wikipedia article on Web 2.0 is indeed pretty darn good.' IIRC, the Web 2.0 Trademark Scandal was also good for a citation or two. BTW, the material in the article crediting O'Reilly & Co. with originating the term 'Web 2.0' was first contributed by '209.204.147.33', which is coincidentally an O'Reilly IP address."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Web 2.0' Most Popular Wikipedia Entry More

'Web 2.0' Most Popular Wikipedia Entry

Comments Filter:

  • Press Release provides incentive to manipulate? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Salvance ( 1014001 ) * on Friday January 05, 2007 @10:57AM (#17474286) Homepage Journal
    After seeing the "Top Blogs Mention 'Wikipedia'" section in the press release, I wonder how many SEO obsessed bloggers will insert the word 'wikipedia' over and over in their posts (or link to it in every post). I'll bet by next year, the # of mentions of the word 'wikipedia' will go up by at least 10X due to this reason alone.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nik13 ( 837926 )
      Yeah, I bet most of these linkers are from sites catering to web designers trying to explain the latest fad.

      As far as traffic to different encyclopedias, it's not surprising at all. I have the Encarta DVD (and older versions of Britannica and Universalis) and see no reason to consult it online - I don't think I've ever tried it once. But my main reason to use wikipedia is because it has *DIFFERENT CONTENT* - not because it's available online or for free. e.g. Encarta has articles about classic music and suc

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Korin43 ( 881732 )
        Wikipedia has pretty good content on "classic" encyclopedia entries, but I agree with you that that's not why I use Wikipedia. I doubt Encarta or Britannica have an article about "Heroes" (the TV show) or a 15 page article on "The Legend of Zelda".
      • Expecting the average geek to give consideration to non-Web 2.0 mediums is asking an awful lot. When slashdot-reading geeks see a post such as yours, this is what we hear:

        Blah blah web-designers blah blah blah wikipedia blah blah blah-blah DVD blah wikipedia blah blah MS (work of the devil) Student blah blah blah.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Wow, these must be the same people that have bought a pirate ship to help keep global warming down.

  • as a matter of fact... (Score:5, Funny)

    by macadamia_harold ( 947445 ) on Friday January 05, 2007 @10:57AM (#17474288) Homepage
    It came as no surprise to Tim O'Reilly that Nielsen BuzzMetrics found 'Web 2.0' the most cited Wikipedia article of the year (as measured by blog mentions).

    As a matter of fact, its popularity has tripled in the last six months.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anpheus ( 908711 )
      That creates an interesting positive correlation between elephant population and Web 2.0 citations. And global warming.

      Clearly the Elephants are bringing about Web 2.0, and their faeces is causing Global Warming.

      Problem solved, where's my prize?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by neoform ( 551705 )
      In other news, Slashdot's new most popular tag is "slownewsday"..

  • Web 2.0 (Score:5, Funny)

    by shirizaki ( 994008 ) on Friday January 05, 2007 @10:57AM (#17474290)
    Same crap, now with rounded edges and fading effects.
    • Yes, but your statement is worthless without a 'link. [slashdot.org]
    • Significant recent developments on the web: (1) the rise of video, (2) the fall of http's transaction-based processing model, (3) a huge increase in user-authored websites (myspace, youtube...)

      Do these add up to "Web 2.0"? I don't care.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ArcherB ( 796902 ) *
        I have to agree with you and Tim Berners-Lee and say that this is nothing more than a buzzword. "Web 1.1" maybe, but until it's based on a new protocols and possibly "pipes", it does not deserve a complete, whole number upgrade, or at least not an even number.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jfengel ( 409917 )
          I'd consider Ajax a whole new protocol, compared to the original intention of the Web. Many really great 2.0 web pages are hardly recognizable as "Web" at all. Here I'm thinking of Google Maps in particular, though to a lesser degree with the Ajax-y webmail clients and threading pages like Digg.

          The user-contributed part of Web 2.0, on the other hand, is largely orthogonal to that. It does seem more evolutionary than revolutionary, though Wikipedia has accomplished some things that I wouldn't have imagined
          • I'd consider Ajax a whole new protocol
            Except for the fact that it uses the exact same version of HTTP, right?

            • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

              by Anonymous Coward
              But it makes the "back" button useless... hence a FULL version upgrade.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by T-Ranger ( 10520 )
              Please read up on the obscure English words "layers" and "abstraction".

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jfengel ( 409917 )
              "Web" wasn't just HTTP; it was HTTP+HTML. There existed no web which was just pure HTTP. I suspect whatever technology replaces HTTP won't be called Web anything-point-oh; it'll be an entirely different technology with radically different capabilities.

              In addition, it's hardly the same version of HTTP. In protocol terms it's 1.1; you can't implement Ajax on top of HTTP 1.0. The streaming, back-and-forth, hold-open HTTP is a very different use. It's the same only to the degree that it's a very general way o

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ArcherB ( 796902 ) *
            I'd consider Ajax a whole new protocol, compared to the original intention of the Web. Many really great 2.0 web pages are hardly recognizable as "Web" at all. Here I'm thinking of Google Maps in particular, though to a lesser degree with the Ajax-y webmail clients and threading pages like Digg.

            I meant a different protocol like TCP, IP, and Netware, are all different protocols. I would think at least require IPv6.
        • ..make that Web Millennium Edition (ME), and everyone will associate it with it's current [popular] incarnation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by benna ( 614220 )
          I am sick and tired of hearing about Web 2.0, blogs, podcasts, and YouTube. The incredible irony is, the only reason there is so much hype around these things is that CNN, Time, and many other traditional media outlets have given them far more coverage than they deserve, in an attempt not to become irrelevant. Of course, CNN provides actual news most of the time, while blogs, though they produce some original reporting once in a great while, are mostly just a source of bad punditry. However, if CNN gives
      • Well I think it adds up to 3.0 with 1.0 being things like usenet, gopher. 2.0 being the tradional www. And 3.0 being the interactive web apps.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Cctoide ( 923843 )
      It's no longer "crap", it's eColi. Get with the times.
    • I wish I had some mod points left to bump you up. A perfect description of web 2.0!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hatta ( 162192 )
      Well no kidding it's the most popular item on wikipedia. Everyone has to look it up because no one really knows exactly what it is.
  • days numbered? For years I have refrained from using printed materials, for various reasons other than the obvious knocking on door memories of door-to-door sales people shucking monthly deliveries of big books. The ease, the vastness, the updating, the decentralized wikipedia (at least in its editors), the accuracy, what more can I say? I enjoy wikipedia for more than the novelty factor which is huge in of itself. It just works, and it is donatoware (currently begging for money now, so if you like it,

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by solevita ( 967690 )
      You think Wikipedia is good? You should try a library!
    • The ease, the vastness, the updating, the decentralized wikipedia (at least in its editors), the accuracy ...

      I was with you right up until that point. Wikipedia is great, but its accuracy is a little questionable. I'd say that in general, Wikipedia is a good idea of what a reasonably well-educated adult probably thinks is true. But despite attempts to enforce citing sources, there's quite a bit of misinformation on topics; generally not outright lies per se, but stuff that seems OK on first glance, but is e

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Omestes ( 471991 )
      The ease, the vastness, the updating, the decentralized wikipedia (at least in its editors), the accuracy, what more can I say?

      Yes, Wikipedia is good, yes most of us use it once a day. BUT... When your actually in need of a real reference, one that is actually authoritative (meaning you can find the author, and his name isn't "skittlesthepony10"), and one that isn't going to change once a week to match the whims of some egotistical inside group. I have found errors in several articles, and when you edit

  • Wikipedia is amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by syphax ( 189065 ) on Friday January 05, 2007 @11:02AM (#17474382) Journal

    I've come to realize that I almost always use Wikipedia as my first stop when researching something I want to learn about. I realized that I was scanning search results for a wikipedia link (now I just go straight to the wikipedia search), and chose that first.

    Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't always accurate. Shocking, on a site where anyone can pretty much edit anything. But the breadth of content, and the relatively uniform structure, and the reasonable level of accuracy make Wikipedia my preferred initial stop for most casual research.

    It really is an amazing phenomenon.
  • if its the most visted article, and its now locked, thats how the world should work!,
  • My god, blogs are pushing web 2.0, and web 2.0 is made up in part of blogs ("blag juice")!

    Ladies and gents, I think we've finally found the business model version of a perpetual motion machine!! Let's all invest before anyone looks to closely! Should I just make the cheque out to Tim O'Reilly directly?

  • Because no one understand it. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shagymoe ( 261297 ) on Friday January 05, 2007 @11:05AM (#17474426)
    Everyone runs to Wikipedia to figure out what the hell Web 2.0 is because nobody knows. I'm not sure the people editing know. As far as I can tell it's just AJAX...so why not call it AJAX? There's no damn VERSIONS of the web!

    • Everyone runs to Wikipedia to figure out what the hell Web 2.0 is because nobody knows. I'm not sure the people editing know. As far as I can tell it's just AJAX...so why not call it AJAX? There's no damn VERSIONS of the web!

      Ah, but the article claims not that it's the most researched term, but the most *cited*! That means loads of morons are citing Web 2.0, talking about Web 2.0, and claiming to be web 2.0, as if it was an actual cohesive thing. Or that it was in any substantial way different than Web

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Billosaur ( 927319 ) *

        It's just buzzword (or bullshit) bingo.

        Otherwise known as marketing... Because ultimately that's all Web 2.0 is: a marketing gimmick. Somehow, you're still using Web 1.0, when here stands the bright new, shiny, multi-functional Web 2.0. It's still all servers running software, just with different software. There's nothing ground-breaking or earth-shattering here, like the first vestiges of a global AI consciousness springing full-blown. This smacks of all those "Upgrade to AOL *.0" campaigns of yesteryear.

      • It's just buzzword (or bullshit) bingo. These kiddies will be the same ones talking about paradigm shifting your out of the box thinking in a proactive way, or whatever the buzzwords are in 20 years when they have jobs.

        Clearly.

        I took an informal poll of my fellow sysadmins at work, and not one could define "Web 2.0." More importantly, none cared.

        Not that I've tried it, but I'm fairly sure that if I took the same poll of the marketing department, everyone within earshot would sip their Starbucks thoughtfully and launch into a 20 minute speech - utterly devoid of content, naturally.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by escay ( 923320 )

        as if it was an actual cohesive thing

        you were so close. that is precisely the reason why the word/phrase 'web 2.0' is useful. the WWW as we know it today has come a long way from arbitrarily arranged blue underlined text on a white page to something equally simple yet more functional (not always but that is the idea). many improvements have made this possible - CSS based design, AJAX, RSS feeds - and it's not just technologies but also the type and function of websites that we have: blogs, wikis, social

      • Well screw you then, you can keep your old web 1.0!
        I will be happy using my intarweb 2.0 with the changing and the speed and the AJAX!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by neoform ( 551705 )
      Why stop there? Why not kill the use of 'AJAX' which stands for Asynchronous JavaScript And XML, since when does "and" ever get included in the acronym? Besides the fact that "AJAX" is really just Javascript, while making use of one particular function: XMLHttpRequest ...... this deserves a special title?

  • Web 2.0 = Hype (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cephalien ( 529516 )
    Even if it -wasn't- the most seen term on Wikipedia; it's going to be now.

    Why is this news?

  • It should come as no surprise, then, that actual encyclopedias such as Britannica and Columbia have nowhere near the web readership as their Wiki counterpart these days.
    Oh, well, that couldn't possibly be at all related to Wikipedia being free and the others charging. No, not at all.
  • It should come as no surprise, then, that actual encyclopedias such as Britannica and Columbia have nowhere near the web readership as their Wiki counterpart these days

    Definetely true, but you must remember these are two beasts that ultimately serve different purposes:

    The Britannica focuses on proper form, accuracy, and thoroughness;
    Wikipedia focuses on brevity (sometimes), collaboration, and timeliness.

    But most importantly for an average user, the ability to click-through to hundreds of interest

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      But most importantly for an average user, the ability to click-through to hundreds of interesting topics in a single sitting is the most attractive part of Wikipedia.
       
      And secondly it has the words Don't Panic inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover.. oh wait.
      • On this meme [dtecomic.com]:
        I liked it the first time.
        I also liked it the second time.
        The third time it grew on me.
        Times four through twelve, I was ready to declare it my favorite meme.
        After the thirteenth repetition of the meme, I began to notice subtle but grating flaws in your references to Douglas Adams.
        Around repetition twenty-four, I decided that only violence can stop comparisons of Wikipedia to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
        And around 31 I was weighing the pros and cons of various weapons.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by iabervon ( 1971 )
      Wikipedia is actually extremely verbose. It's just structured in such a way that having many many short articles isn't too difficult to use. So Wikipedia has the space for a detailed article on the 40th US Congress, and Britannica doesn't. This may seem insignificant, but if you're trying to find out the political conditions surrounding the impeachments of US presidents, it's important, particularly if you also want similar information on the outcome of the election following the impeachment trial.
  • I bet O'Reilly is beside himself. He probably thought up this drivel an hour before his lecture. Now he's got the most referenced article on Wikipedia? Not bad publicity for coming up with something so lame.
  • If you ask 50 different people what Web 2.0 means you'll get 50 mostly different answers. To be clear you need refer to a common definition and that's what the Wiki definition provides. If West Coast Offense were a tech term, it would probably be right up there with Web 2.0.

  • Web 2.0 Is Hilarious (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hoplite3 ( 671379 ) on Friday January 05, 2007 @11:40AM (#17474996)
    From Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka at somethingawful.com:

    Question: What is Web 2.0?
      Answer: Web 2.0 is a combination of Web 1.0 and being punched in the dick.

    Question: How do I know I'm using a website / service / product that is officially "Web 2.0" and not actually "Web 1.0" with various patches and enhancements added to it?
    Answer: Web 2.0 is made obvious by the addition of completely and highly unnecessary bells and whistles that don't do anything besides annoy you and make life more complicated. If Web 1.0 was the equivalent of reading a book, Web 2.0 is reading a book while all the words are flying around and changing pages as the book rotates randomly and sets your hands on fire. Also there's this parrot that keeps on flying towards your head in repeated attempts to gouge out your eyes.

    Question: I read about this one website in Wired Magazine. Is that Web 2.0??
    Answer: Oh definitely. Wired won't even mention Web 1.0 sites. Every single site in their magazine is at least Web 2.0. Sometimes they're even up to Web 45.2 (such as www.ebutts-and-credit-reports-delivered-via-carrie r-pidgeon.com)!

    Question: My roommate said he "digged" a "wikipedia entry" about "the blogosphere" which mentioned "podcasting" as a viable form of "crowdsourcing."
    Answer: Your roommate is a faggot. Also, this wasn't technically a question.

    ---------
    You have to watch out for those parrots.
    • Ah, thanks for posting this. I needed a good laugh. Whenever I hear web 2.0 I get this nervous tick and the desire to send O'Reilly a box of slaughtered kittens. I feel much better now!
    • Wow, a conversation with one of the most unfunny guys in history. I wish Uwe Boll would kill him. At least Uwe isn't worshipped by a bunch of assholes on the Internet.
  • Here is best explanation of what exactly Web 2.0 is that I've seen :) http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4366 [somethingawful.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by geoffspear ( 692508 )
      Holding out? I'm already using the Web3.0.2 beta. It's great.
      • I read that issue of Wired which stated Jesus didn't exist, because the Bible crowdsourced their podcast to the blogosphere via Ruby on Rails to Ezekiel 2.0.
    • Sorry, but just about everything that comes out of somethingawful is, well, awful. That site is the asshole of the Internet and is full of dicks.
  • will be 2007's top Wikipedia entry followed closely by Buzzword Compliant 1.5.
  • It appears to me that consumers are stupid and want their inter-tubes labeled with updated versions like AOL had back in the day. All I want to know is: How long before I start getting free Web 2.0 coasters... I mean CDs in the mail?

  • Correct spelling (Score:3, Funny)

    by Vadim Makarov ( 529622 ) <makarov@vad1.com> on Friday January 05, 2007 @11:56AM (#17475274) Homepage
    It should come as no surprise, then, that actual encyclopedias such as Britannica and Columbia

    Should have read "It should come as no surprise, then, that {other|traditional|old|smaller} encyclopedias such as Britannica and Columbia"

    • I'm not expert at the English language, but couldn't it also be argued that encyclopedias should be encyclopediae? Oh.. maybe that i near the end throws things off... anyone know?

      Aikon-

  • Uptime pretty good as well... (Score:3)

    by MMC Monster ( 602931 ) on Friday January 05, 2007 @12:13PM (#17475556)
    A year ago it was a pain in the ass to edit a wikipedia article, as the servers were always going down. Uptime is much improved now. The fund drive shows that a lot of people (and a few corporations) are finding it useful to fund this public experiment.
  • Of course blogs would reference an article which references them. That sig I have, I've had it a while. Web 2.0 is the art of being completely circular and self-referential.

  • Most viewed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Friday January 05, 2007 @12:32PM (#17475886) Homepage Journal
    The most viewed pages [wikimedia.org] stats present a very different story. Ignoring wikipedia-related pages and recently featured articles, the top few are:

    Wii
    Sex
    World War II
    United States
    Christmas
    Deaths in 2006
    Naruto
    Sexual intercourse
    Pornography
    The Holocaust
    List of big-bust models and performers
    List of sex positions

    Sad.

  • ... because nobody really knows what Web 2.0 means.
  • Since nobody really knows what the hell Web 2.0 is supposed to mean, it's no surprise people keep looking up.

    Besides, not unlike Wikipedia, the definition of web 2.0 changes constantly anyway ;-).
  • After all, web 2.0 is mostly that - a BUZZ.
  • The wikipedia entry is really popular because nobody, even the people using the term, really knows what the fuck web 2.0 is.

    ~D

  • incest (Score:3, Informative)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Friday January 05, 2007 @01:14PM (#17476664)
    Wikipedia is a Web 2.0 application due to its collaborative nature.
  • I imagine it's the most popular wikipedia entry for several reasons:

    1) There's no good source elsewhere on the Internet which describes what, precisely, "Web 2.0" is.
    2) Nobody knows what Web 2.0 is
    3) Everyone who thinks they know what Web 2.0 is has a different definition.

    I'm a moderately experienced programmer with experience with AJAX - and I had no freakin' clue what Web 2.0 was until this past summer (thereabouts) when my brother (who is a bit more trendy than I, and an animator) told me to make his web
  • Well of course it is! It's just been slashdotted!
  • People who think sites like Wordpress blogs aren't Web 2.0 because it has rounded corners and faded headers just don't get it. It's Web 2.0 because it connects your blog to Amazon Wishlist, Cafe Press, Flickr (14 plugins), Last.fm, Netflix, Yahoo, Akismet, etc. http://wp-plugins.net/ [wp-plugins.net] lists 182 plugins that connect to external tools.

    Web 2.0 is not about the user interface. It's about the server to server interface.

    It's not just social networking as in Orkut. But if your profile on a phpBB website listed
  • Man, am I glad the kind of losers that do this kind of fad-chasing bullshit have left. Slashdot is so much better since digg stole most of the retards.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Threni ( 635302 )
      I think it would be good if Slashdot members could take an online technical test in any field related to science/IT. The results of this could be used to give a score, allowing the nerds amongst us here the ability to apply a weighting to posts from those with low scores.

      Take back Slashdot from the peasants!
  • It's amusing whenever there's an article mentioning something like "Web 2.0" or "AJAX" or "blogs" that the Slashdot community jumps over itself in condemning the stupidity of said terms; however, I would bet that a vast majority of the /. crowd are actually responsible for either creating or improving or somehow working on said terms. You're telling me no one here actively develops and promotes flashy new web technologies, or runs blogs, or any of the other new-fangled gee-whiz aspects of the tech world?
  • No one understands what the hell it is...
  • Well, its obvious that the article entry just became even more popular due to this article. The thing that makes wikipedia work so well is that it has entries on everything. Whereas Encyclopaedia Britannica most likely won't have an entry on a death metal band called "Rotting Christ".
  • They had all these new visitors. But in the last year I moved, and got a new job. So my home ISP stuff appears to be new to them, as it does when I syrf in from work. But I'm not new.
  • Also the #2 "define" search in Google Zeitgeist 2006 [google.com].

    -puk
  • (for december)
    1. Main Page (duh!)
    2. Wikipedia
    3. Wiki
    4. Wii
    5. Sex
    6. World War II
    7. United States
    8. Christmas
    9. Edvard Munch
    10. Deaths in 2006
    11. Naruto
    12. The Holocaust
    13. Pornography
    14. Sexual intercourse
    15. List of sex positions
    16. List of big-bust models and performers
    17. Adolf Hitler
    18. YouTube
    19. Attack on Pearl Harbor
    20. American Civil War

    From http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/~leon/stats/wik icharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles& limit=20&month=12%2F2006&mode=view [wikimedia.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close