Anyone who had read this site for a while knows that I love nothing more than criticizing my fellow bloggers. While I have the utmost respect for many of them, when someone goes a bit too far out on a limb, they deserved to be called out for it. In this case, it’s Calacanis.com attempting to define Web 3.0.
Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform.
This is just silly for several reasons. First of all, we don’t all know what Web 2.0 is, and I have no reason to believe that Web 2.0 has finished evolving. This simply means that any attempt to portray Web 3.0 before its time is meaningless. This leads me to my second point on why the above definition is silly. Saying that Web 3.0 is all the stuff that is created due to Web 2.0 is saying that they are the same thing. Let’s face it, using Web 2.0 to create better content and services is one of the benefits of Web 2.0. The fact that content is better does not mean that there was any evolution producing a “version.”
It’s really interesting to try and understand the world we live in and put names to things. Often, terms like Web 2.0 really do help us figure out our surroundings. However, when we try and theorize around the current environment, this should be done in a thoughtful and informed manner. Web 3.0 is not here and may not be here for some time to come. I look forward to the day when I know what it is, and in all probability, we won’t even call it Web #(dot)#. Let’s leave this one alone and be happy that 2.0 exists and is making our cyber lives better.
8 responses to “Defining Web 3.0”
SaysSystematic HRThat silly Jason Calacanis. He’s got nothing to write about so he creates a definition of a something that doesn’t exist. All it has is a catchy name: Web 3.0 What does it amount to? Cutting the sloppy stuff out of Web 2.0.
SaysSystematic HRThat silly Jason Calacanis. He’s got nothing to write about so he creates a definition of a something that doesn’t exist. All it has is a catchy name: Web 3.0 What does it amount to? Cutting the sloppy stuff out of Web 2.0
SaysSystematic HRThat silly Jason Calacanis. He’s got nothing to write about so he creates a definition of a something that doesn’t exist. All it has is a catchy name: Web 3.0 What does it amount to? Cutting the sloppy stuff out of Web 2.0.
technology, so I risk confusing potential customers of benchmarking firms and software vendors. Tough – the term is important to me and I’m going to continue defining it in my own way. But web 3.0, collaboration 3.0 etc. I’m not convinced. See alsohttps://systematichr.com/?p=816.
Web 3.0? Please, this is nothing more than an attention grabber. Don’t waste our time with nonsense. Those of us trying to use 2.0 have enough work to do perfecting 2.0 and it’s uses. Dubs, I agree with you. I don’t know Calcanis, but don’t know that I want to. It also seems kind of vain. “I’m not using 2.0, I’m using 3.0. Aren’t I cutting edge?” Give me a break.
I think everyone is still suffering from Web 2.0 fatigue and overload. These “dot oh” monikers are tiresome. Nevertheless, there is something beginning to happen here — A practical realization of the “Semantic Web” to which the W3C has devoted a lot of time over the years. The growing adoption of microformats (each 10 million plus LinkedIn profile is formatted using hResume) is one sign of this.
“Web 3.0” as I know it is generally associated with “semantic web” concepts. While anything wrapped up in a “dot oh” moniker is likely to have 4 parts hype to 1 part substance, there are some practical realizations of semantic web concepts starting to take hold. The spread of microformats is a good example. LinkedIn has 10 million profiles formatted in the hResume microformat. A growing number of social network applications are leveraging the embedded intelligence in HTML that microformats represent. I have a post from about a year ago on Web 3.0 when the NY Times ran its article. Also have a few posts on Microformats and hResume if anyone is interested.
Yep Jason is full of it once again. As Chuck said Web 3.0 associated with the semantic web concepts, Jason was basically defining Web 3.0 to match his new company. Meh!
As I mentioned in my comment, perhaps “dot-oh” monikers should be avoided all together. But anyone interested in learning about “Web 3.0” (as more conventionally defined) and HR might want to attend a free webinar we’re planning in the: yearhResume: A Semantic Web For Recruiting? See
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/824414913