Someone released an upgraded internet?

The phrase Web 2.0 brought up in my mind the image of a whole new World Wide Web – that an upgraded version had appeared and was flying off the shelves. However, the websites that I visited did seem to be different enough to warrant such a dramatic title.
The first site I used was Gliffy. I found it a bit clumsy to use, although that was probably because of inexperience. I used Gliffy to make a chart, something which would clearly have many applications, including in multimedia projects. While its format is somewhat better for making charts, Gliffy is not really very different from some other graphic programs. The ability to access the chart from anywhere you can find an internet connection would be useful for travelers or projects with multiple creators. However, that capability really is not unique.
I found the other site, Wikispaces, to be more interesting. Once I got my own Wiki site started, it became hard to stop. The ability to quickly set up a site with multiple users to easily post links and documents would clearly be quite useful, especially in terms of individual classes or even individual sections. However, isn’t that really not so innovative – can’t weblogs do that too? Wiki’s format does seem a bit better suited for educational purposes. A site with multiple pages seems more practical for a class than one long continuous one. Separate pages could be used for different subjects and assignments, or for different sections of the same class.
What does Wiki mean anyway? One Wiki site offers a definition. It does seem that Wikipedia has a very appropriate name, given that its entries are created by many users. There is also a Wiki search engine.
However, the best site, I thought, was techlearning. This contains many potentially useful features. Under the daily tips/features menu, it linked to a site that really impressed me. This is the Exploratorium museum site, which caught my attention because of my interest in science. It features online activities, exhibits, and webcasts, among other things. The showing of an educational video or film in class has been common in school for a while. However, what if the teacher linked to a site like Exploratorium and projected it for the whole class instead? This would be a much more dynamic and active experience. The teacher would have some choices as to what to show or do – he or she could even let the students decide. An active learning experience is preferred over a passive one. Unlike a website, a video is really not very different from a lecture in the sense that the students are simply watching and listening. Furthermore, this sort of multimedia activity would be just as easy to set up as watching a video, as the teacher does not need to create anything, just hook up the website. I am not sure if there are any copyright problems in using a website in such a manner. I would think not, given that we have done so. On the other hand, copyright issues can make showing a video or DVD to a class more complicated. A class in the San Francisco area can visit the actual site as well.
Techlearning also highlights projects built by students, educators, and organizations. One that caught my eye was a research project on the homeless called Life on the Streets. In the book To Teach, author William Ayers discusses a student who did a project on the homeless. Now with multimedia, a similar project could be shown to a much wider audience – a great advantage if your project is designed to raise social awareness. Techlearning also features a site and product database, as well as news and help sites. One site to check out contains guides on copyright information.

That’s nice, but is Web 2.0 still too drastic a term? What does it mean anyway? Wikipedia offers this definition:

---The idea of "Web 2.0" can also relate to a transition of some websites from isolated information silos to interlinked computing platforms that function like locally-available software in the perception of the user. Web 2.0 also includes a social element where users generate and distribute content, often with freedom to share and re-use. ---

Wikipedia also describes what proponents say makes Web 2.0 unique:

---Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. They can build on the interactive facilities of "Web 1.0" to provide "Network as platform" computing, allowing users to run software-applications entirely through a browser.[12] Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site and exercise control over that data.[13][12] These sites may have an "Architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.[12][2] This stands in contrast to very old traditional websites, the sort which limited visitors to viewing and whose content only the site's owner could modify. Web 2.0 sites often feature a rich, user-friendly interface based on Ajax,[12][2] Flex or similar rich media. The sites may also have social-networking aspects.[13][12]---

Sounds like a description of many of the features in the sites we have seen. However, does that still warrant a 2.0 label? Some people think that is overdoing it, Wikipedia points out:

---The argument exists that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of the World Wide Web at all, but merely continues to use so-called "Web 1.0" technologies and concepts. Note that techniques such as Ajax do not replace underlying protocols like HTTP, but add an additional layer of abstraction on top of them. Many of the ideas of Web 2.0 had already featured in implementations on networked systems well before the term "Web 2.0" emerged. Amazon.com, for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in 2002.[24] Previous developments also came from research in computer-supported collaborative learning and computer-supported cooperative work and from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino. In a podcast interview Tim Berners-Lee described the term "Web 2.0" as a "piece of jargon": "nobody really knows what it means"; and went on to say "if Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along."[5] ---

I am more inclined to favor this view. I think you need a bigger, more original advance to use such labels. Regardless, some people are pushing the Web 2.0 idea very hard. One such proponent is Tim O’Reilly. He states that the concept came about from the belief that the dot-com collapse of 2001 was a turning point in the history of the internet. His article contains information about the history of Web 2.0, and the relationship a number of companies have had with it. In fact, these articles on Web 2.0 seem to stress its importance for the world of business, not education (although isn't that the case with everything?). There was Web 2.0 conference last year, and an Expo this April. In fact, it so hot that Wikipedia reports that one company, CMP Media is trying to get the rights to use the term “Web 2.0”.

This raises another problem. How long will it be before someone starts marketing the term Web 3.0 ?

Just to get off topic, has anyone not seen this? Yuk!