幸运28计划网页丹麦28幸运28计划网页两分钟pc幸运28在线预测凤凰补贴大战当前掉头做产业升级 天猫精灵是怎么想的?

發布時間︰

不是什麼思想深邃的真知灼見,的確全是一些盡人皆知的平常故事,在軍營 里流傳的老掉牙的陳年舊事和最近的新聞。可是,連我自己也驚訝不止,這 些故事竟使兩個姑娘听得開心已極,兩人笑個不停。艾迪特的笑聲像銀鈴一 樣,聲調很高,听上去特別狂,有時候又尖又高,微微劈了,然而她身上這 種歡愉情緒想心真正發自內心,因為她雙頰上像細瓷一樣薄而透明的皮膚泛 出越來越鮮艷的紅暈,一種健康甚至美麗的色澤映亮了她的臉龐;她那兩只 灰色的眸子,平時有點像鋼鐵一樣冷峻、鋒利,這時閃爍著天真的快樂。在 她忘卻她那受到束縛的身體時,看她一眼,真是美好;因為這時候她的動作 變得越來越自由無羈,她的手勢越來越柔和輕松,她無拘無束地把身子朝後 一靠,開心地笑笑,舉杯喝口酒,把伊羅娜拉到身邊,用胳臂摟著她的肩膀。 的確這兩個姑娘听了我這些無聊的廢話簡直樂不可支。講故事如果效果甚 好,總會使講故事的人受到鼓舞;早已忘卻的一大堆故事,這時又都涌入我 的腦海。我平時其實靦腆成性,膽子也小,這時突然找到了一種嶄新的勇氣︰ 我也跟著她們哈哈大笑,並且逗她們笑。我們三十像瘋瘋癲癲的孩子,在那 個角落里擠在一起。 幸运28计划网页丹麦28 六幸运28计划网页两分钟 可憐的受害者的名字︰送給艾迪特?封?開克斯法爾伐小姐。 “當然,”當然,封?開克斯法爾伐老爺家,”古爾特納太太自豪地說 後面,伊羅娜剛才出去的那扇門,開始輕輕地在鉸鏈上轉動起來。艾迪 特就像被人當場捕獲似的,急急忙忙地把匣子砰地一聲使勁關上。現在她對 我說的話,听上去就像是道命令︰pc幸运28在线预测凤凰 幸而已經天亮。走廊里響起腳步聲,樓下小推車從石塊路上隆隆經過, 玻璃窗上映著明亮的天光,人的頭腦思考起來也比關在可惡的黑暗之中要清 醒一些,黑暗是喜歡臆造各式各樣的鬼魅來的。我對自己說,也許一切並不 那麼可怕。說不定根本就沒有人知道這事。當然她是永遠也不會忘懷,永遠 也不會原諒這事的,這可憐的臉色蒼白的姑娘,這患病的癱瘓的姑娘!我的 腦海里猛然閃過一個念頭,很有用處。我急急忙忙梳理了一下我蓬亂的頭發, 套上軍裝,從我那驚詫不已的勤務兵身邊跑過,他使用他那蹩腳的帶小俄羅 斯口音的德語在我背後拚命叫喊︰“少尉先生,少尉先生,咖啡已經煮好了!” 我像一陣風似地沖下營房的樓梯,像支飛箭從那些還沒有穿戴整齊懶洋 洋地站在院子里的輕騎兵身旁一掠而過,他們都來不及向我立正敬禮。我一 口氣飛快地從他們身邊跑過,穿過軍營的大門來到門外。我以不夫少尉身分 所允許的速度徑直跑向市政廳廣場上的那爿花店。早上五點半所有的商店都 還沒有開門,我心里焦急,自然把這層忘得一干二淨。幸而古爾特納太太除 了鮮花之外還兼賣蔬菜;一小車土豆停在門口,已經卸了一半,我使勁猛敲 窗口,听到她已經趿著拖鞋下樓來了。急忙之中我編了個故事︰今天是我好 朋友的命名日,我昨天把這事忘了個一干二淨。過半小時我們就要出發了, 因此我希望能馬上把花送去。所以快把花拿來,趕快,把她店里最美麗的花 拿來!這位身軀肥胖的女店主還穿著睡衣,馬上趿著兩只破了窟窿的拖鞋打 開店門.把她最珍貴的寶藏拿給我看,這是一大蓬長柄玫瑰。她問我要多少。 我說,都要,統統都要!她問我︰就這樣簡單地把花捆在一起還是最好裝在 一個美麗的花籃里?好吧,好吧,來個花籃吧。我這個月剩下的餉銀訂了這 籃美麗的鮮花就全報銷了,這個月最後幾天我就得省下晚飯,不上咖啡館, 要不就得借錢。可是此時此刻我覺得這些全無所謂,甚至可以說,我干的這 件傻事能讓我付出重大代價,我心里反而高興。因為這段時間里,我一直感 到一種惡意的樂趣,要好好懲治一下我這個蠢貨,要讓我為自己干出的雙重
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
A tag cloud (a typical Web 2.0 phenomenon in itself) presenting Web 2.0 themes

Web 2.0 (also known as Participative (or Participatory)[1] and Social Web[2]) refers to websites that emphasizes user-generated content, ease of use, participatory culture and interoperability (i.e., compatible with other products, systems, and devices) for end users.

The term was invented by Darcy DiNucci in 1999 and later popularized by Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty at the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 Conference in late 2004.[3][4][5][6] The Web 2.0 framework only specifies the design and use of websites and does not place any technical demands or specifications on designers. The transition was gradual and, therefore, no precise date for when this change happened has been given.[which?][2]

A Web 2.0 website allows users to interact and collaborate with each other through social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community. This contrasts the first generation of Web 1.0-era websites where people were limited to viewing content in a passive manner. Examples of Web 2.0 features include social networking sites or social media sites (e.g., Facebook), blogs, wikis, folksonomies ("tagging" keywords on websites and links), video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube), hosted services, Web applications ("apps"), collaborative consumption platforms, and mashup applications.

Whether Web 2.0 is substantially different from prior Web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who describes the term as jargon.[7] His original vision of the Web was "a collaborative medium, a place where we [could] all meet and read and write."[8][9] On the other hand, the term Semantic Web (sometimes referred to as Web 3.0)[10] was coined by Berners-Lee to refer to a web of content where the meaning can be processed by machines.[11]

History[edit]

Web 1.0[edit]

Web 1.0 is a retronym referring to the first stage of the World Wide Web's evolution. According to Cormode and Krishnamurthy, "content creators were few in Web 1.0 with the vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content."[12] Personal web pages were common, consisting mainly of static pages hosted on ISP-run web servers, or on free web hosting services such as GeoCities.[13][14] With Web 2.0, it became common for average web users to have social-networking profiles (on sites such as Myspace and Facebook) and personal blogs through either a low-cost web hosting service or through a dedicated host (like Blogger or LiveJournal). In general, content was generated dynamically, allowing readers to comment directly on pages in a way that was not common previously.[citation needed]

Some Web 2.0 capabilities were present in the days of Web 1.0, but were implemented differently. For example, a Web 1.0 site may have had a guestbook page for visitor comments, instead of a comment section at the end of each page (typical of Web 2.0). During Web 1.0, server performance and bandwidth had to be considered—lengthy comment threads on multiple pages could potentially slow down an entire site. Terry Flew, in his 3rd edition of New Media, described the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 as a,

move from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from publishing to participation, from web content as the outcome of large up-front investment to an ongoing and interactive process, and from content management systems to links based on "tagging" website content using keywords (folksonomy).

Flew believed these factors formed the trends that resulted in the onset of the Web 2.0 "craze".[15]

Characteristics[edit]

Some common design elements of a Web 1.0 site include:[16]

Web 2.0[edit]

The term "Web 2.0" was coined by Darcy DiNucci, an information architecture consultant, in her January 1999 article "Fragmented Future":[6]

The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven.

Writing when Palm Inc. introduced its first web-capable personal digital assistant (supporting Web access with WAP), DiNucci saw the Web "fragmenting" into a future that extended beyond the browser/PC combination it was identified with. She focused on how the basic information structure and hyper-linking mechanism introduced by HTTP would be used by a variety of devices and platforms. As such, her "2.0" designation refers to the next version of the Web that does not directly relate to the term's current use.

The term Web 2.0 did not resurface until 2002.[19][20][21] These authors[which?] focus on the concepts currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a universal, standards-based integration platform".[21] In 2004, the term began to popularize when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, John Battelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform", where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business for you".[22] They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. O'Reilly and Battelle contrasted Web 2.0 with what they called "Web 1.0". They associated this term with the business models of Netscape and the Encyclop?dia Britannica Online. For example,

Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.[23]

In short, Netscape focused on creating software, releasing updates and bug fixes, and distributing it to the end users. O'Reilly contrasted this with Google, a company that did not, at the time, focus on producing end-user software, but instead on providing a service based on data such as, the links that Web page authors make between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer Web searches based on reputation through its "PageRank" algorithm. Unlike software, which undergoes scheduled releases, such services are constantly updated, a process called "the perpetual beta". A similar difference can be seen between the Encyclop?dia Britannica Online and Wikipedia - while the Britannica relies upon experts to write articles and release them periodically in publications, Wikipedia relies on trust in (sometimes anonymous) community members to constantly write and edit content. Wikipedia editors are not required to have educational credentials, such as degrees, in the subjects in which they are editing. Wikipedia is not based on subject-matter expertise, but rather on an adaptation of the open source software adage "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". This maxim is stating that if enough users are able to look at a software product's code (or a website), then these users will be able to fix any "bugs" or other problems. The Wikipedia volunteer editor community produces, edits, and updates articles constantly. O'Reilly's Web 2.0 conferences have been held every year since 2004, attracting entrepreneurs, representatives from large companies, tech experts and technology reporters.

The popularity of Web 2.0 was acknowledged by 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year (You).[24] That is, TIME selected the masses of users who were participating in content creation on social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites.

In the cover story, Lev Grossman explains:

It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world but also change the way the world changes.

Characteristics[edit]

Instead of merely reading a Web 2.0 site, a user is invited to contribute to the site's content by commenting on published articles, or creating a user account or profile on the site, which may enable increased participation. By increasing emphasis on these already-extant capabilities, they encourage users to rely more on their browser for user interface, application software ("apps") and file storage facilities. This has been called "network as platform" computing.[4] Major features of Web 2.0 include social networking websites, self-publishing platforms (e.g., WordPress' easy-to-use blog and website creation tools), "tagging" (which enables users to label websites, videos or photos in some fashion), "like" buttons (which enable a user to indicate that they are pleased by online content), and social bookmarking.

Users can provide the data and exercise some control over what they share on a Web 2.0 site.[4][25] These sites may have an "architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.[3][4] Users can add value in many ways, such as by commenting on news stories on a news website, by uploading a relevant photo on a travel website, or by adding a link to a video or TED talk which is pertinent to the subject being discussed on a website. Some scholars argue that cloud computing is an example of Web 2.0 because it is simply an implication of computing on the Internet.[26]

Edit box interface through which anyone could edit a Wikipedia article.

Web 2.0 offers almost all users the same freedom to contribute.[27] While this opens the possibility for serious debate and collaboration, it also increases the incidence of "spamming", "trolling", and can even create a venue for racist hate speech, cyberbullying, and defamation. The impossibility of excluding group members who do not contribute to the provision of goods (i.e., to the creation of a user-generated website) from sharing the benefits (of using the website) gives rise to the possibility that serious members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and "free ride" on the contributions of others.[28] This requires what is sometimes called radical trust by the management of the Web site.

According to Best,[29] the characteristics of Web 2.0 are rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, Web standards, and scalability. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom,[30] and collective intelligence[31] by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0. Some websites require users to contribute user-generated content to have access to the website, to discourage "free riding".

A list of ways that people can volunteer to improve Mass Effect Wiki, an example of content generated by users working collaboratively.

The key features of Web 2.0 include:[citation needed]

  1. Folksonomy free classification of information; allows users to collectively classify and find information (e.g. "tagging" of websites, images, videos or links)
  2. Rich user experience dynamic content that is responsive to user input (e.g., a user can "click" on an image to enlarge it or find out more information)
  3. User participation information flows two ways between the site owner and site users by means of evaluation, review, and online commenting. Site users also typically create user-generated content for others to see (e.g., Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that anyone can write articles for or edit)
  4. Software as a service (SaaS) Web 2.0 sites developed APIs to allow automated usage, such as by a Web "app" (software application) or a mashup
  5. Mass participation near-universal web access leads to differentiation of concerns, from the traditional Internet user base (who tended to be hackers and computer hobbyists) to a wider variety of users

Comparison with Web 1.0[edit]

In 2005, Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty held a brainstorming session to elucidate characteristics and components of the Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 transition and what changed:[32]

Web 1.0 Web 2.0
Banner ads on websites Automatic text, image, video, and interactive media advertisements, that are targeted to website content and audience
Ofoto, an online digital photography website, on which users could store, share, view and print digital photos Flickr, an image hosting and video hosting website and web services suite
content delivery networks (CDN) BitTorrent and eMule, communications protocols of peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) which is used to distribute data and electronic files over the Internet
mp3.com, a website providing information about digital music and artists, songs, services, community, and technologies and a legal, free music-sharing service Napster, a pioneering peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing Internet service that emphasized sharing digital audio files, typically songs, encoded in MP3 format
Britannica Online, written by professionals and experts Wikipedia, can be written and edited by any person, even amateurs and non-experts
personal websites blogging
evite upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation search engine optimization (SEO)
page views cost per click
"screen scraping" web services
publishing of online documents, once approved by gatekeepers and editorial staff mass user participation, without approval of content by gatekeepers or editorial staff
content management systems wikis that allow almost any users to contribute
directories (taxonomy) "tagging" of websites, images and videos (folksonomy)
"stickiness" syndication

Technologies[edit]

The client-side (Web browser) technologies used in Web 2.0 development include Ajax and JavaScript frameworks. Ajax programming uses JavaScript and the Document Object Model (DOM) to update selected regions of the page area without undergoing a full page reload. To allow users to continue interacting with the page, communications such as data requests going to the server are separated from data coming back to the page (asynchronously).

Otherwise, the user would have to routinely wait for the data to come back before they can do anything else on that page, just as a user has to wait for a page to complete the reload. This also increases the overall performance of the site, as the sending of requests can complete quicker independent of blocking and queueing required to send data back to the client. The data fetched by an Ajax request is typically formatted in XML or JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format, two widely used structured data formats. Since both of these formats are natively understood by JavaScript, a programmer can easily use them to transmit structured data in their Web application.

When this data is received via Ajax, the JavaScript program then uses the Document Object Model to dynamically update the Web page based on the new data, allowing for rapid and interactive user experience. In short, using these techniques, web designers can make their pages function like desktop applications. For example, Google Docs uses this technique to create a Web-based word processor.

As a widely available plug-in independent of W3C standards (the World Wide Web Consortium is the governing body of Web standards and protocols), Adobe Flash is capable of doing many things that were not possible pre-HTML5. Of Flash's many capabilities, the most commonly used is its ability to integrate streaming multimedia into HTML pages. With the introduction of HTML5 in 2010 and the growing concerns with Flash's security, the role of Flash is decreasing.

In addition to Flash and Ajax, JavaScript/Ajax frameworks have recently become a very popular means of creating Web 2.0 sites. At their core, these frameworks use the same technology as JavaScript, Ajax, and the DOM. However, frameworks smooth over inconsistencies between Web browsers and extend the functionality available to developers. Many of them also come with customizable, prefabricated 'widgets' that accomplish such common tasks as picking a date from a calendar, displaying a data chart, or making a tabbed panel.

On the server-side, Web 2.0 uses many of the same technologies as Web 1.0. Languages such as Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, as well as Enterprise Java (J2EE) and Microsoft.NET Framework, are used by developers to output data dynamically using information from files and databases. This allows websites and web services to share machine readable formats such as XML (Atom, RSS, etc.) and JSON. When data is available in one of these formats, another website can use it to integrate a portion of that site's functionality.

Concepts[edit]

Web 2.0 can be described in three parts:

  • Rich Internet application (RIA) — defines the experience brought from desktop to browser, whether it is "rich" from a graphical point of view or a usability/interactivity or features point of view.
  • Web-oriented architecture (WOA) — defines how Web 2.0 applications expose their functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate the functionality providing a set of much richer applications. Examples are feeds, RSS feeds, web services, mashups.
  • Social Web — defines how Web 2.0 websites tend to interact much more with the end user and make the end user an integral part of the website, either by adding his or her profile, adding comments on content, uploading new content, or adding user-generated content (e.g., personal digital photos).

As such, Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client- and server-side software, content syndication and the use of network protocols. Standards-oriented Web browsers may use plug-ins and software extensions to handle the content and user interactions. Web 2.0 sites provide users with information storage, creation, and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment known as "Web 1.0".

Web 2.0 sites include the following features and techniques, referred to as the acronym SLATES by Andrew McAfee:[33]

Search
Finding information through keyword search.
Links to other websites
Connects information sources together using the model of the Web.
Authoring
The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many authors. Wiki users may extend, undo, redo and edit each other's work. Comment systems allow readers to contribute their viewpoints.
Tags
Categorization of content by users adding "tags" — short, usually one-word or two-word descriptions — to facilitate searching. For example, a user can tag a metal song as "death metal". Collections of tags created by many users within a single system may be referred to as "folksonomies" (i.e., folk taxonomies).
Extensions
Software that makes the Web an application platform as well as a document server. Examples include Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, ActiveX, Oracle Java, QuickTime, and Windows Media.
Signals
The use of syndication technology, such as RSS feeds to notify users of content changes.

While SLATES forms the basic framework of Enterprise 2.0, it does not contradict all of the higher level Web 2.0 design patterns and business models. It includes discussions of self-service IT, the long tail of enterprise IT demand, and many other consequences of the Web 2.0 era in enterprise uses.[34]

Documents of Web 2.0 can be assessed by measures related to such quality dimension as accessibility, completeness, credibility, involvement, objectivity, readability, relevance, reputation, style, timeliness, uniqueness and usefulness[35]

Usage[edit]

A third important part of Web 2.0 is the social web. The social Web consists of a number of online tools and platforms where people share their perspectives, opinions, thoughts and experiences. Web 2.0 applications tend to interact much more with the end user. As such, the end user is not only a user of the application but also a participant by:

The popularity of the term Web 2.0, along with the increasing use of blogs, wikis, and social networking technologies, has led many in academia and business to append a flurry of 2.0's to existing concepts and fields of study,[36] including Library 2.0, Social Work 2.0,[37] Enterprise 2.0, PR 2.0,[38] Classroom 2.0,[39] Publishing 2.0,[40] Medicine 2.0,[41] Telco 2.0, Travel 2.0, Government 2.0,[42] and even Porn 2.0.[43] Many of these 2.0s refer to Web 2.0 technologies as the source of the new version in their respective disciplines and areas. For example, in the Talis white paper "Library 2.0: The Challenge of Disruptive Innovation", Paul Miller argues

Blogs, wikis and RSS are often held up as exemplary manifestations of Web 2.0. A reader of a blog or a wiki is provided with tools to add a comment or even, in the case of the wiki, to edit the content. This is what we call the Read/Write web. Talis believes that Library 2.0 means harnessing this type of participation so that libraries can benefit from increasingly rich collaborative cataloging efforts, such as including contributions from partner libraries as well as adding rich enhancements, such as book jackets or movie files, to records from publishers and others.[44]

Here, Miller links Web 2.0 technologies and the culture of participation that they engender to the field of library science, supporting his claim that there is now a "Library 2.0". Many of the other proponents of new 2.0s mentioned here use similar methods. The meaning of Web 2.0 is role dependent. For example, some use Web 2.0 to establish and maintain relationships through social networks, while some marketing managers might use this promising technology to "end-run traditionally unresponsive I.T. department[s]."[45]

There is a debate over the use of Web 2.0 technologies in mainstream education. Issues under consideration include the understanding of students' different learning modes; the conflicts between ideas entrenched in informal online communities and educational establishments' views on the production and authentication of 'formal' knowledge; and questions about privacy, plagiarism, shared authorship and the ownership of knowledge and information produced and/or published on line.[46]

Marketing[edit]

Web 2.0 is used by companies, non-profit organisations and governments for interactive marketing. A growing number of marketers are using Web 2.0 tools to collaborate with consumers on product development, customer service enhancement, product or service improvement and promotion. Companies can use Web 2.0 tools to improve collaboration with both its business partners and consumers. Among other things, company employees have created wikis—Web sites that allow users to add, delete, and edit content — to list answers to frequently asked questions about each product, and consumers have added significant contributions.

Another marketing Web 2.0 lure is to make sure consumers can use the online community to network among themselves on topics of their own choosing.[47] Mainstream media usage of Web 2.0 is increasing. Saturating media hubs—like The New York Times, PC Magazine and Business Week — with links to popular new Web sites and services, is critical to achieving the threshold for mass adoption of those services.[48] User web content can be used to gauge consumer satisfaction. In a recent article for Bank Technology News, Shane Kite describes how Citigroup's Global Transaction Services unit monitors social media outlets to address customer issues and improve products.[49] According to Google Timeline, the term Web 2.0 was discussed and indexed most frequently in 2005, 2007 and 2008. Its average use is continuously declining by 24% per quarter since April 2008.[citation needed]

Destination Marketing[edit]

In tourism industries, social media is an effective channel to attract travellers and promote tourism products and services by engaging with customers. The brand of tourist destinations can be built through marketing campaigns on social media and by engaging with customers. For example, the “Snow at First Sight” campaign launched by the State of Colorado aimed to bring brand awareness to Colorado as a winter destination. The campaign used social media platforms, for example, Facebook and Twitter, to promote this competition, and requested the participants to share experiences, pictures and videos on social media platforms. As a result, Colorado enhanced their image as a winter destination and created a campaign worth about $2.9 million.[50]

The tourism organisation can earn brand royalty from interactive marketing campaigns on social media with engaging passive communication tactics. For example, “Moms” advisors of the Walt Disney World are responsible for offering suggestions and replying to questions about the family trips at Walt Disney World. Due to its characteristic of expertise in Disney, “Moms” was chosen to represent the campaign.[51] Social networking sites, such as Facebook, can be used as a platform for providing detailed information about the marketing campaign, as well as real-time online communication with customers. Korean Airline Tour created and maintained a relationship with customers by using Facebook for individual communication purposes.[52]

Travel 2.0 refers a model of Web 2.0 on tourism industries which provides virtual travel communities. The travel 2.0 model allows users to create their own content and exchange their words through globally interactive features on websites.[53][54] The users also can contribute their experiences, images and suggestions regarding their trips through online travel communities. For example, TripAdvisor is an online travel community which enables user to rate and share autonomously their reviews and feedback on hotels and tourist destinations. Non pre-associate users can interact socially and communicate through discussion forums on TripAdvisor.[55]

Social media, especially Travel 2.0 websites, plays a crucial role in decision-making behaviors of travelers. The user-generated content on social media tools have a significant impact on travelers choices and organisation preferences. Travel 2.0 sparked radical change in receiving information methods for travelers, from business-to-customer marketing into peer-to-peer reviews. User-generated content became a vital tool for helping a number of travelers manage their international travels, especially for first time visitors.[56] The travellers tend to trust and rely on peer-to-peer reviews and virtual communications on social media rather than the information provided by travel suppliers.[55][51]

In addition, an autonomous review feature on social media would help travelers reduce risks and uncertainties before the purchasing stages.[53][56] Social media is also a channel for customer complaints and negative feedback which can damage images and reputations of organisations and destinations.[56] For example, a majority of UK travellers read customer reviews before booking hotels, these hotels receiving negative feedback would be refrained by half of customers.[56]

Therefore, the organisations should develop strategic plans to handle and manage the negative feedback on social media. Although the user-generated content and rating systems on social media are out of a businesses controls, the business can monitor those conversations and participate in communities to enhance customer loyalty and maintain customer relationships.[51]

Education[edit]

Web 2.0 could allow for more collaborative education. For example, blogs give students a public space to interact with one another and the content of the class.[57] Some studies suggest that Web 2.0 can increase the public's understanding of science, which could improve governments' policy decisions. A 2012 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison notes that "...the internet could be a crucial tool in increasing the general public’s level of science literacy. This increase could then lead to better communication between researchers and the public, more substantive discussion, and more informed policy decision."[58]

Web-based applications and desktops[edit]

Ajax has prompted the development of Web sites that mimic desktop applications, such as word processing, the spreadsheet, and slide-show presentation. WYSIWYG wiki and blogging sites replicate many features of PC authoring applications. Several browser-based services have emerged, including EyeOS[59] and YouOS.(No longer active.)[60] Although named operating systems, many of these services are application platforms. They mimic the user experience of desktop operating systems, offering features and applications similar to a PC environment, and are able to run within any modern browser. However, these so-called "operating systems" do not directly control the hardware on the client's computer. Numerous web-based application services appeared during the dot-com bubble of 19972001 and then vanished, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers.

Distribution of media[edit]

XML and RSS[edit]

Many regard syndication of site content as a Web 2.0 feature. Syndication uses standardized protocols to permit end-users to make use of a site's data in another context (such as another Web site, a browser plugin, or a separate desktop application). Protocols permitting syndication include RSS (really simple syndication, also known as Web syndication), RDF (as in RSS 1.1), and Atom, all of which are XML-based formats. Observers have started to refer to these technologies as Web feeds. Specialized protocols such as FOAF and XFN (both for social networking) extend the functionality of sites and permit end-users to interact without centralized Web sites.

Web APIs[edit]

Web 2.0 often uses machine-based interactions such as REST and SOAP. Servers often expose proprietary Application programming interfaces (API), but standard APIs (for example, for posting to a blog or notifying a blog update) have also come into use. Most communications through APIs involve XML or JSON payloads. REST APIs, through their use of self-descriptive messages and hypermedia as the engine of application state, should be self-describing once an entry URI is known. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) is the standard way of publishing a SOAP Application programming interface and there are a range of Web service specifications.

Criticism[edit]

Critics of the term claim 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.[7] First, techniques such as Ajax do not replace underlying protocols like HTTP, but add an additional layer of abstraction on top of them. Second, many of the ideas of Web 2.0 were 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.[61] Previous developments also came from research in computer-supported collaborative learning and computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) and from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino, all phenomena that preceded Web 2.0. Tim Berners-Lee, who developed the initial technologies of the Web, has been an outspoken critic of the term, while supporting many of the elements associated with it.[62] In the environment where the Web originated, each workstation had a dedicated IP address and always-on connection to the Internet. Sharing a file or publishing a web page was as simple as moving the file into a shared folder.[63]

Perhaps the most common criticism is that the term is unclear or simply a buzzword. For many people who work in software, version numbers like 2.0 and 3.0 are for software versioning or hardware versioning only, and to assign 2.0 arbitrarily to many technologies with a variety of real version numbers has no meaning. The web does not have a version number. For example, in a 2006 interview with IBM developerWorks podcast editor Scott Laningham, Tim Berners-Lee described the term "Web 2.0" as a jargon:[7]

"Nobody really knows what it means... 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... Web 2.0, for some people, it means moving some of the thinking [to the] client side, so making it more immediate, but the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be... a collaborative space where people can interact."

Other critics labeled Web 2.0 "a second bubble" (referring to the Dot-com bubble of 19972000), suggesting that too many Web 2.0 companies attempt to develop the same product with a lack of business models. For example, The Economist has dubbed the mid- to late-2000s focus on Web companies as "Bubble 2.0".[64]

In terms of Web 2.0's social impact, critics such as Andrew Keen argue that Web 2.0 has created a cult of digital narcissism and amateurism, which undermines the notion of expertise by allowing anybody, anywhere to share and place undue value upon their own opinions about any subject and post any kind of content, regardless of their actual talent, knowledge, credentials, biases or possible hidden agendas. Keen's 2007 book, Cult of the Amateur, argues that the core assumption of Web 2.0, that all opinions and user-generated content are equally valuable and relevant, is misguided. Additionally, Sunday Times reviewer John Flintoff has characterized Web 2.0 as "creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity: uninformed political commentary, unseemly home videos, embarrassingly amateurish music, unreadable poems, essays and novels... [and that Wikipedia is full of] mistakes, half-truths and misunderstandings".[65] In a 1994 Wired interview, Steve Jobs, forecasting the future development of the web for personal publishing, said "The Web is great because that person can't foist anything on you-you have to go get it. They can make themselves available, but if nobody wants to look at their site, that's fine. To be honest, most people who have something to say get published now."[66] Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association has been vocal about his opposition to Web 2.0 due to the lack of expertise that it outwardly claims, though he believes that there is hope for the future.[67]

"The task before us is to extend into the digital world the virtues of authenticity, expertise, and scholarly apparatus that have evolved over the 500 years of print, virtues often absent in the manuscript age that preceded print".

There is also a growing body of critique of Web 2.0 from the perspective of political economy. Since, as Tim O'Reilly and John Batelle put it, Web 2.0 is based on the "customers... building your business for you,"[22] critics have argued that sites such as Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are exploiting the "free labor"[68] of user-created content.[69] Web 2.0 sites use Terms of Service agreements to claim perpetual licenses to user-generated content, and they use that content to create profiles of users to sell to marketers.[70] This is part of increased surveillance of user activity happening within Web 2.0 sites.[71] Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society argues that such data can be used by governments who want to monitor dissident citizens.[72] The rise of AJAX-driven web sites where much of the content must be rendered on the client has meant that users of older hardware are given worse performance versus a site purely composed of HTML, where the processing takes place on the server.[73] Accessibility for disabled or impaired users may also suffer in a Web 2.0 site.[74]

Others have noted that Web 2.0 technologies are tied to particular political ideologies. "Web 2.0 discourse is a conduit for the materialization of neoliberal ideology."[75] The technologies of Web 2.0 may also "function as a disciplining technology within the framework of a neoliberal political economy."[76]

Trademark[edit]

In November 2004, CMP Media applied to the USPTO for a service mark on the use of the term "WEB 2.0" for live events.[77] On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a cease-and-desist demand to the Irish non-profit organisation IT@Cork on May 24, 2006,[78] but retracted it two days later.[79] The "WEB 2.0" service mark registration passed final PTO Examining Attorney review on May 10, 2006, and was registered on June 27, 2006.[77] The European Union application (which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland)[80] was declined on May 23, 2007.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Blank, Grant; Reisdorf, Bianca (2012-05-01). "The Participatory Web". Information. 15 (4): 537554. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.665935.
  2. ^ a b "What is Web 1.0? - Definition from Techopedia". Techopedia.com. Archived from the original on 2018-07-13. Retrieved 2018-07-13.
  3. ^ a b Graham, Paul (November 2005). "Web 2.0". Archived from the original on 2012-10-10. Retrieved 2006-08-02. I first heard the phrase 'Web 2.0' in the name of the Web 2.0 conference in 2004.
  4. ^ a b c d O'Reilly, Tim (2005-09-30). "What Is Web 2.0". O'Reilly Network. Archived from the original on 2013-04-24. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
  5. ^ Strickland, Jonathan (2007-12-28). "How Web 2.0 Works". computer.howstuffworks.com. Archived from the original on 2015-02-17. Retrieved 2015-02-28.
  6. ^ a b DiNucci, Darcy (1999). "Fragmented Future" (PDF). Print. 53 (4): 32. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-11-10. Retrieved 2011-11-04.
  7. ^ a b c "DeveloperWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee". 2006-07-28. Archived from the original on 2012-08-21. Retrieved 2012-08-05.
  8. ^ "Berners-Lee on the read/write web". BBC News. 2005-08-09. Archived from the original on 2012-09-01. Retrieved 2012-08-05.
  9. ^ Richardson, Will (2009). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms (2nd ed.). California: Corwin Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-4129-5972-8.
  10. ^ "What is Web 3.0? Webopedia Definition". www.webopedia.com. Archived from the original on 2017-02-15. Retrieved 2017-02-15.
  11. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim; James Hendler; Ora Lassila (May 17, 2001). "The Semantic Web" (PDF). Scientific American. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 1, 2018. Retrieved October 1, 2018.
  12. ^ Balachander Krishnamurthy, Graham Cormode (2 June 2008). "Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0". First Monday. 13 (6). Archived from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 23 September 2014.
  13. ^ "Geocities - Dead Media Archive". cultureandcommunication.org. Archived from the original on 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-09-23.
  14. ^ "So Long, GeoCities: We Forgot You Still Existed". 2009-04-23. Archived from the original on 2014-10-17. Retrieved 2014-09-23.
  15. ^ Flew, Terry (2008). New Media: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. p. 19.
  16. ^ Viswanathan, Ganesh; Dutt Mathur, Punit; Yammiyavar, Pradeep (March 2010). "From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and beyond: Reviewing usability heuristic criteria taking music sites as case studies". IndiaHCI Conference. Mumbai. Retrieved 20 February 2015.
  17. ^ "Is there a Web 1.0?". HowStuffWorks. January 28, 2008. Archived from the original on February 22, 2019. Retrieved February 15, 2019.
  18. ^ "The Right Size of Software". www.catb.org. Archived from the original on 2015-06-17. Retrieved 2015-02-20.
  19. ^ Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. RSS: INJAN (It's not just about news). Blog. Blog Data Space. August 21 OpenLinkSW.com[dead link]
  20. ^ Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. Jeff Bezos Comments about Web Services. Blog. Blog Data Space. September 25. OpenLinkSW.com Archived 2010-02-12 at the Wayback Machine
  21. ^ a b Knorr, Eric. 2003. The year of Web services. CIO, December 15.
  22. ^ a b O'Reilly, Tim, and John Battelle. 2004. Opening Welcome: State of the Internet Industry. In San Francisco, California, October 5.
  23. ^ O’Reilly, T., 2005.
  24. ^ Grossman, Lev. 2006. Person of the Year: You. December 25. Time.com Archived 2009-09-23 at the Wayback Machine
  25. ^ Hinchcliffe, Dion (2006-04-02). "The State of Web 2.0". Web Services. Archived from the original on 2007-05-15. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
  26. ^ [SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=732483 Wireless Communications and Computing at a Crossroads: New Paradigms and Their Impact on Theories Governing the Public's Right to Spectrum Access], Patrick S. Ryan, Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 239, 2005.
  27. ^ Pal, Surendra Kumar. "Learn More About Web 2.0". academia.edu. Retrieved 2015-10-14.
  28. ^ Gerald Marwell and Ruth E. Ames: "Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. I. Resources, Interest, Group Size, and the Free-Rider Problem". The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (May, 1979), pp. 13351360
  29. ^ Best, D., 2006. Web 2.0 Next Big Thing or Next Big Internet Bubble? Lecture Web Information Systems. Techni sche Universiteit Eindhoven.
  30. ^ Greenmeier, Larry & Gaudin, Sharon. "Amid The Rush To Web 2.0, Some Words Of Warning  Web 2.0  InformationWeek". www.informationweek.com. Archived from the original on 2008-04-21. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
  31. ^ O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, p. 30
  32. ^ "What Is Web 2.0". oreilly.com.
  33. ^ McAfee, A. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. MIT Sloan Management review. Vol. 47, No. 3, p. 2128.
  34. ^ Hinchcliffe, Dion (November 5, 2006). "Web 2.0 definition updated and Enterprise 2.0 emerges". ZDNet blogs. Archived from the original on 2006-11-29.
  35. ^ Lewoniewski, W?odzimierz (2019-01-03). "Measures for Quality Assessment of Articles and Infoboxes in Multilingual Wikipedia". Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. 339: 619633. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04849-5_53. ISBN 978-3-030-04848-8.
  36. ^ Schick, S., 2005. I second that emotion. IT Business.ca (Canada).
  37. ^ Singer, Jonathan B. (2009). The Role and Regulations for Technology in Social Work Practice and E-Therapy: Social Work 2.0. In A. R. Roberts (Ed). New York, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-536937-3.
  38. ^ Breakenridge, D., 2008. PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences 1st ed., FT Press.
  39. ^ "Classroom 2.0". Archived from the original on 2010-09-22. Retrieved 2010-09-22.
  40. ^ Karp, Scott. "Publishing 2.0". Publishing2.com. Archived from the original on 2011-02-06. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  41. ^ Medicine 2.0
  42. ^ Eggers, William D. (2005). Government 2.0: Using Technology to Improve Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Democracy. Lanham MD, U.S.A.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7425-4175-7. Archived from the original on 2009-02-17.
  43. ^ Rusak, Sergey (2009). Web 2.0 Becoming An Outdated Term. Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.: Progressive Advertiser. Archived from the original on March 3, 2010.
  44. ^ Miller 1011
  45. ^ "i-Technology Viewpoint: It's Time to Take the Quotation Marks Off "Web 2.0" | Web 2.0 Journal". Web2.sys-con.com. Archived from the original on 2011-02-16. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  46. ^ Anderson, Paul (2007). "What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education". JISC Technology and Standards Watch. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.108.9995.
  47. ^ Parise, Salvatore (2008-12-16). "The Secrets of Marketing in a Web 2.0 World". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-07-10. Retrieved 2017-08-08.
  48. ^ MacManus, Richard (2007). "Mainstream Media Usage of Web 2.0 Services is Increasing". Read Write Web. Archived from the original on 2011-08-11.
  49. ^ "Banks use Web 2.0 to increase customer retention". PNT Marketing Services. 2010. Archived from the original on 2010-11-14. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
  50. ^ Mukherje, Anwesha (June 2016). "Role of Social Media in Tourism Marketing". International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR). 5 (6): 20262033. doi:10.21275/v5i6.NOV1647761.
  51. ^ a b c Hudson, Simon; Thal, Karen (2013-01-01). "The Impact of Social Media on the Consumer Decision Process: Implications for Tourism Marketing". Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 30 (12): 156160. doi:10.1080/10548408.2013.751276. ISSN 1054-8408.
  52. ^ Park, Jongpil; Oh, Ick-Keun (2012-01-01). "A Case Study of Social Media Marketing by Travel Agency: The Salience of Social Media Marketing in the Tourism Industry". International Journal of Tourism Sciences. 12 (1): 93106. doi:10.1080/15980634.2012.11434654. ISSN 1598-0634.
  53. ^ a b Buhalis, Dimitrios; Law, Rob (2008). "Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the Internet—The state of eTourism research". Tourism Management. 29 (4): 609623. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.005.
  54. ^ Milano, Roberta; Baggio, Rodolfo; Piattelli, Robert (2011-01-01). "The effects of online social media on tourism websites". Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2011. Springer, Vienna. pp. 471483. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.454.3557. doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-0503-0_38. ISBN 978-3-7091-0502-3.
  55. ^ a b Miguens, J.; Baggio, R. (2008). "Social media and Tourism Destinations: TripAdvisor Case Study" (PDF). Advances in Tourism Research: 2628. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-08-30. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
  56. ^ a b c d Zeng, Benxiang; Gerritsen, Rolf (2014-04-01). "What do we know about social media in tourism? A review". Tourism Management Perspectives. 10: 2736. doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2014.01.001.
  57. ^ Richardson, Will (2010). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Corwin Press. p. 171. ISBN 978-1-4129-7747-0.
  58. ^ Pete Ladwig; Kajsa E. Dalrymple; Dominique Brossard; Dietram A. Scheufele; Elizabeth A. Corley (2012). "Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding". Science and Public Policy. 39 (6): 761774. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs048.
  59. ^ "Can eyeOS Succeed Where Desktop.com Failed?". www.techcrunch.com. Archived from the original on 2007-12-12. Retrieved 2007-12-12.
  60. ^ "Tech Beat Hey YouOS!  BusinessWeek". www.businessweek.com. Archived from the original on 2007-12-17. Retrieved 2007-12-12.
  61. ^ O'Reilly, Tim (2002-06-18). "Amazon Web Services API". O'Reilly Network. Archived from the original on 2006-06-13. Retrieved 2006-05-27.
  62. ^ "Tim Berners-Lee on Web 2.0: "nobody even knows what it means"". September 2006. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-06-15. He's big on blogs and wikis, and has nothing but good things to say about AJAX, but Berners-Lee faults the term "Web 2.0" for lacking any coherent meaning.
  63. ^ "developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee". 2006-08-22. Archived from the original on 2007-07-01. Retrieved 2007-06-04.
  64. ^ "Bubble 2.0". The Economist. 2005-12-22. Archived from the original on 2006-11-19. Retrieved 2006-12-20.
  65. ^ Flintoff, JohnPaul (2007-06-03). "Thinking is so over". The Times. London. Archived from the original on 2009-05-07. Retrieved 2009-06-05.
  66. ^ Wolf, Gary. "Steve Jobs: The Next Insanely Great Thing". Wired. Archived from the original on 2015-04-18. Retrieved 2015-04-16.
  67. ^ Gorman, Michael. "Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part 1". Archived from the original on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 26 April 2011.
  68. ^ Terranova, Tiziana (2000). "Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy". Social Text. 18 (2): 3358. doi:10.1215/01642472-18-2_63-33.
  69. ^ Peterson, Soren (2008). "Loser Generated Content: From Participation to Exploitation". First Monday. 13 (3). Archived from the original on 2012-10-25. Retrieved 2012-04-28. Taylor, Astra (2014). The People's Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age. Metropolitan Books. ISBN 9780805093568.
  70. ^ Gehl, Robert (2011). "The Archive and the Processor: The Internal Logic of Web 2.0". New Media and Society. 13 (8): 12281244. doi:10.1177/1461444811401735.
  71. ^ Andrejevic, Mark (2007). iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era. Lawrence, KS: U P of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1528-5.
  72. ^ Zittrain, Jonathan. "Minds for Sale". Berkman Center for the Internet and Society. Archived from the original on 12 November 2011. Retrieved 13 April 2012.
  73. ^ "Accessibility in Web 2.0 technology". Archived from the original on 2015-04-02. Retrieved 2014-09-15. In the Web application domain, making static Web pages accessible is relatively easy. But for Web 2.0 technology, dynamic content and fancy visual effects can make accessibility testing very difficult.
  74. ^ "Web 2.0 and Accessibility". Archived from the original on 24 August 2014. Web 2.0 applications or websites are often very difficult to control by users with assistive technology.
  75. ^ Marwick, Alice (2010). "Status Update: Celebrity, publicity and Self-Branding in Web 2.0" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-06.
  76. ^ Jarrett, Kylie (2008). "Interactivity Is Evil! A Critical Investigation of Web 2.0". First Monday. 13 (3). doi:10.5210/fm.v13i3.2140.
  77. ^ a b "USPTO serial number 78322306". Tarr.uspto.gov. Archived from the original on 2011-01-13. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  78. ^ "O'Reilly and CMP Exercise Trademark on 'Web 2.0'". Slashdot. 2006-05-26. Archived from the original on 2009-05-11. Retrieved 2006-05-27.
  79. ^ Torkington, Nathan (2006-05-26). "O'Reilly's coverage of Web 2.0 as a service mark". O'Reilly Radar. Archived from the original on 15 January 2008. Retrieved 2006-06-01.
  80. ^ "Application number 004972212". 2007. Archived from the original on 2013-05-12. Retrieved 2010-03-22.

External links[edit]

  • Learning materials related to Web 2.0 at Wikiversity
  • Web 2.0 / Social Media / Social Networks. Charleston, South Carolina, SUA: MultiMedia. 2017. ISBN 978-1-544-63831-7.