Very interesting article, and something I have been wondering myself. Let me tell you where my mind is on this. I see three generations of Web currently, all vying together for position.

Let’s all assume that Web 1.0 is done. I would say it has more growing up to do, but for the most part is done. This is basic infrastructure, the cabling and routers, the communication layer. We laid it out, we worked it as much as we could, and we built a framework that we need to take advantage of.

This is Web 2.0 comes in. Leveraging this wonderful, as Thomas L Friedman would call it, flattener of the world. We are now creating content at a rate like never before. I saw last week a statistic that amazed me. We created more content in the last two years than we did in the past 50. And we will triple that in the next year. This is the true Web 2.0 – everyone gets a voice in the infrastructure. True, much of it is probably not as good as it should be – but it is something. Now we need to grow the Web 2.0 into something useful – organize it, rate it, rank it, make it useful – even trash some of it.

Then we have Web 3.0 in its infancy. Just a baby. Web 3.0 is what to do with the content, how to leverage it better, how to make it useful, how to use it for automating and enhancing (think Star Trek, and just about any other SciFi thing from the last 30 years). Computers talking to Computers automatically doing things (this is the last stage of growing Web 1.0 – services, automation, etc.). People using the content in the best possible ways. Semantic Web used to automatically rank, organize, and make useful some of the content we create – eventually all of it. Imagine if anything we do, type, write, even think eventually gets organized and automatically used for all its potential.

That would be Web 4.0.

Too much? maybe, but i think it would be great!

Thanks for writing this
Esteban Kolsky

What Tim O’Reilly, Dale Dougherty, and others did with ‘Web 2.0′ was to identify patterns that been going on for years and extrapolate. We won’t know, or be able to name, the next thing until we’re already soaking in it.

-Jesse Robbins
O’Reilly Radar

I define Web 2.0 as how the internet is and should be used. A Web 1.0 website is a static page where a person throws up some information about their product or whatever and that’s it. There’s no interaction, no engagement. Web 2.0 is about “trusting users as co-developers” and “harnessing collective intelligence.”

Also, I believe Web 2.0 is a good term to use when interacting with the “outside world.” Most basic computer users are familiar with the numbering system of program reiterations: 1.0, 2.0, etc. So saying you work in Web 2.0 is a good starting point opposed to saying you work in social media.

I’ll admit I haven’t used the “I work in Web 2.0″ line yet. I have been saying “I’m working in Internet marketing” which was been a conversation killer. (Or maybe it’s just the people I’ve been talking with.) Still, I plan to put my money where my mouth is and say “I work in Web 2.0.” We’ll see how it goes.