Fancy Web

OK, so in the past week Dare has flipped the bozo bit on the "Web 2.0" term. Chime has put the term in front of the firing squad. I get the point, already. I've always thought that it's a silly term, but beyond the hype I do think it's useful to have a term for all those emerging aspects of the Web that we did not see a lot of, say, three years ago. Let's be real, a lot about the Web is changing, not necessarily all for the better, but the phenomenon does still need to be described. So for my part, I'll ditch the "Web 2.0" moniker and adopt something more appropriately tongue-in-cheek—"Fancy Web". (I have to stop myself from extrapolating to "Antsy Web", "Chancy Web", "Dancy Web" or the not-very-P.C. "Nancy Web").

BTW, the first person to suggest that it should instead be "FancyWeb" gets the gas-face (n/m).

[Uche Ogbuji]

via Copia
2 responses
My question is why do you need an umbrella term. Tagging/folksonomies are different from APIs. User generated content (wikis/blogs) are different from sites that encourage self service (e.g. Google AdSense). Coming up with an umbrella term that means all of these things and more seems to guarantee that we will always be talking past each other when trying to have meaningful discussion.
It's a good point, Dare.  Maybe an umbrella term is not needed.  But there are times when we want to refer to all that fanciness, and isn't it cumbersome to say "tagging and folksonomies and AJAX and Web feeds and Wikis and Web services and..."?  I suppose one coud ponder which comes first?  The buzzword or the hype?  If we didn't have an overheated term such as "Web 2.0", would we ever decide we want to talk about all those things all at once?