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!
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
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
You think Wikipedia is good? You should try a library!
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.
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
I wasn't going for humour. Let's expand my point a little.
Now, I'm used to a pretty good library service (I've got a Masters degree from a pretty big university), but I think that my point will stand for a whole range of libraries.
Ease: I've found libraries to be very easy to search - if you can work google, you can work the majority of library database search tools. Sure, you may not be able to do in text searching for a book (although you can for most online journal services), but you can use google to do that or, now this is a shocker, do some reading yourself. In short, finding stuff in books is easy. As for books being heavy, or on a high shelf; if you really have used a computer for so long that your body has withered away, I think books will be the last of you worries. I'd be much more concerned about walking to the library and getting mugged on route.
Vastness: No contest.
Updating: If I wanted something that wasn't in stock, it could be ordered. More often, however, a nearby library would have the book and I'd get it on inter-library loan. Basically, if a book came out, I could get a copy very quickly.
Decentralised: Much more than en.wikipeida.org.
Accuracy: You seem to be confusing "accuracy" and "neutrality". Almost nothing is published from a neutral viewpoint - you can't blame this on libraries. The problem with Wikipedia is that it claims to be neutral when it clearly is not. As with searching for things in books, the key to making judgements concerning the accuracy or neutrality of a book is to actually read it, then some more on the same subject.
Wikipedia might be great for people that have no intention or requirement to actually read things; it might be great for getting quick definitions of some TLA you've not encountered before, but it will never replace a library. For people that have to read things and produce credible pieces of work, Wikipedia is a joke: It will never replace traditional publishing. That was what I was trying to get across in my original post. If you found it funny, however, then even better!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wikipedia is a Web 2.0 application due to its collaborative nature.
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/ 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.
Damn, they removed it? I'll just have to edit it again.