Does "Web 2.0" mean anything more than the name of a conference yet? I don't like to admit it, but it's starting to. When people say "Web 2.0" now, I have some idea what they mean. And the fact that I both despise the phrase and understand it is the surest proof that it has started to mean something.
-quote from Paul Graham
November 2005-
Tim O’Reilly of OReilly Media claims that he coined the term 'Web 2.0' at a conference brainstorming session with web pioneer Dale Dougherty, following the dot-com crash in fall of 2001. They both felt that instead of reveling the web’s weakness, the collapse was actually the ‘shakeout phase’ of a powerful new web, with new applications and sites ready to form the basis of a whole new era of interaction between people and information.
From this idea the concept of holding a Web 2.0 Conference was born, with its first meeting held in San Francisco in October 2004. It was a collaboration of business entrepreneurs and technology innovators, exploring opportunities to recreate the web as a thriving business opportunity. It was a convocation not of ‘geeks’, but of CEOs and venture capitalists. Tim O’Reilly himself – a certified computer geek – was seen by his friends wearing a business suit for the first time.
In spite of the uncertain direction of that first conference, there is now general agreement that the designation “Web 2.0” in fact is a good way to describe the new way the web is developing. Paul Graham, essayist and program language designer sums up the new web with 3 concepts: Ajax, Democracy, and ‘Don’t Maltreat Users’.
Next--