Slashdot Mirror
'Web 2.0' Most Popular Wikipedia Entry
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."
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.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
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.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Same crap, now with rounded edges and fading effects.
In Soviet Russia, dots slash you!
Go now, buffer that count!
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, I recommend you do something to show how much you like it) which to me directly reflects its useful factor to an individual and audience alike. I can't help but think the relative stranglehold of the Brittanica and like sources are numbered. Good job WikiPedia, keep up the quality, you deserve what you are getting. [all this is of course from an uneducated 9th grade dropout :)]
...that it's awesome that a publicly [boobies] edited entity like wikipedia is cited so often. [hi mom]
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.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
if its the most visted article, and its now locked, thats how the world should work!,
WulframII - Free Online Mutiplayer 3D Tank Shooting Game
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?
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!
Even if it -wasn't- the most seen term on Wikipedia; it's going to be now.
Why is this news?
If firefighters fight fire, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
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 1.0, or Web 0.95 RC2.
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.
It could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
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 interesting topics in a single sitting is the most attractive part of Wikipedia.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
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.
This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
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.
From Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka at somethingawful.com:
e r-pidgeon.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-carri
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.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
Here is best explanation of what exactly Web 2.0 is that I've seen :) http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4366
will be 2007's top Wikipedia entry followed closely by Buzzword Compliant 1.5.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
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?
-Now I may be an idiot, but there is one thing I am not sir, and that, sir, is an idiot.
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"
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
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.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
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.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Wow, cool, amazing! But the term "web 2.0" is marketing.
Web 2.0 is nothing more than our actual web evolution.
For example once in the past we had rudimentary cars and now we have more
modern cars _but_ they are _still_ cars.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
..make that Web Millennium Edition (ME), and everyone will associate it with it's current [popular] incarnation.
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
An article just published today says that over 58% of Wikipedia's articles are fake, empty, simple lists of other articles, or garbage...
I love Web 2.0. I'm all about Web 2.0. Web 2.0 feels like Easter! I can't wait for Web 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and especially Web 3.0. Web 3.0 much better. Web 3.0 will be like Christmas!
... because nobody really knows what Web 2.0 means.
http://outcampaign.org/
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.
Read radical news here
The wikipedia entry is really popular because nobody, even the people using the term, really knows what the fuck web 2.0 is.
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
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 site 'like digg or something - you know, web 2.0' (not the most descriptive person, but there you have it). Half an hour later I'd figured out what people tend to think of Web 2.0..
I hate that acronym. It's worse than blog, plog, or any of the other asinine web oriented and symantically awkward terms.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
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 either a mis-simplification of a topic or a pure misunderstanding.
I'm not sure this is even really a criticism of Wikipedia. It's quite useful as it is, and I don't think that an "expert system" as others have proposed would be superior. It just means one has to keep in mind when reading WP that it is, in general, written and edited by non-experts, and thus shouldn't be taken too far. But for that matter, neither should any general-reference Encyclopedia.
In general, I'm a fan of Wikipedia, and I think that the fluidity of the information that it provides might actually help the next generation of researchers, who are growing up with it in their lives. Once you realize how easy it is for anyone to change an article in Wikipedia, it really drills in the importance of going directly to primary sources. By allowing students to access primary source information more quickly, it lets them do better research, faster. This is all assuming, of course, that teachers are good about punishing students who try to use WP as a primary source itself. (Unless the topic at hand is public perception or meta-critique of social issues, where WP might be appropriate as an actual source.) Where past generations might have accepted what was written in an encyclopedia as basically true and inviolate, people growing up with Wikipedia will probably be more quick to realize the controversiality of many issues that a dead-tree reference can render into (false) black and white. When you read an article in Britannica, you can't look at the Discussion page and see what kind of editorial fistfight went into its creation; with Wikipedia, you can.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Well of course it is! It's just been slashdotted!
Seems to me, that a long time ago, it made sense to contact respected researchers, form a company, pay them, etc. and bind it all up into books and sell the results. Surely, this would do much to improve learning and spread knowledge. Well. They did their job too well, because people raised on old fashioned encyclopedias learned to make the web, which allowed research of comparable quality to be assembled so affordably that it was "too cheap to meter".
Maybe some day, something will come along and make the web look just as anachronistic as those old books look now. What, I can't imagine. Neither could Brittanica. All they could do is stand in the mall, and refuse to tell me how much their books cost, no matter how many times I asked. I won't shed any tears if they go out of business. As for the other Encyclopedia people, I will be a bit sad--especially the World Book company. We had a set of 1959 World Books, which captured an interesting slice of time in their entries for "Negroe" and "Nuclear Power". We also had a set of Funk & Wagnels that were purchased one-by-one from a grocery store promotion. Plainly, these old books reached out to the masses and spread knowledge in their day; but their day is done. aitsitdaerstteidri.
Actually, in addition to being slightly cheaper, it has the words "DON'T PANIC" on the cover.
That really helped it edge out the competition.
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/ 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 your friends as you have them listed in Orkut, that's Web 2.0.
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.
Think you've seen everything 2.0? Think again... haha
http://www.pray20.com/
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? Puhleeze...
...my "Boss 2.0" cites "Web 2.0" almost as much as "Agility" and "Operational Excellence". Then again, I can still sense the "Pointy Hair 1.0" underneath the new "Toupee 2.0".
If Google is to ever become the "World's hub of information", they need to seriously consider purchasing Wikipedia. I can only imagine the possibilities that would open up. It would also mean a Tonne of funding for wikipedia.
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.
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.
-puk
(for december)
k icharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles& limit=20&month=12%2F2006&mode=view
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/wi
most cited != most visited
Wikipedia is not actually an encyclopedia, eh? The high literary quality of Slashdot posts never fails to disgust.