Web 3.0 Definition 3

Some folks have been asking me for the clear definition of the term 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.

Web 2.0 services are now the commoditized platform, not the final product. In a world where a social network, wiki, or social bookmarking service can be built for free and in an instant, what's next?

Web 2.0 services like digg and YouTube evolve into Web 3.0 services with an additional layer of individual excellence and focus. As an example, funnyordie.com leverages all the standard YouTube Web 2.0 feature sets like syndication and social networking, while adding a layer of talent and trust to them.

A version of digg where experts check the validity of claims, corrected errors, and restated headlines to be more accurate would be the Web 3.0 version. However, I'm not sure if the digg community will embrace that any time soon.

Wikipedia, considered a Web 1.5 service, is experiencing the start of the Web 3.0 movement by locking pages down as they reach completion, and (at least in their German version) requiring edits to flow through trusted experts.

Also of note, is what Web 3.0 leaves behind. Web 3.0 throttles the "wisdom of the crowds" from turning into the "madness of the mobs" we've seen all to often, by balancing it with a respect of experts. Web 3.0 leaves behind the cowardly anonymous contributors and the selfish blackhat SEOs that have polluted and diminished so many communities.

Web 3.0 is a return to what was great about media and technology before Web 2.0: recognizing talent and expertise, the ownership of ones words, and fairness. It's time to evolve, shall we?

[ Note: Make sure you read the update on the unauthorized comments. I also added quotes around official since some folks actually thought that I had the power to lay down the official definition of what our industry will be doing over the next 10 years--really. :-) ]

* Oct 3rd 2007 9:30PM
* Permalink
* Email this
* Linking Blogs
* Comments [55]

Recent Posts

* Official announcement regarding my retirement from blogging. (7/11/2008)
* iPhone 3g -- are you getting one or not? (7/11/2008)
* Mahalo Guide Notes in Yahoo/Google results (beta) (7/08/2008)
* Twitter's milkshake meet FriendFeed's straw (7/06/2008)
* How to make red velvet cake and more... (7/05/2008)

Reader Comments
(Page 3 of 3)

41. Great linkbait JC! Ironically you are clearly one of the best SEO folks out there.
*
This definition seems odd to me. You've simply said 3.0 is "gifted 2.0". I prefer what O'Reilly has suggested - that 3.0 will be all the 2.0 goodness with vast networks of integrated data points with lots of real time data.

Posted at 3:37PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Joe Duck

42. More and more I am less and less able to tolerate your thoughts and opinions.

I used to really enjoy your ramblings.

Posted at 3:47PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Rick

43. Interesting thought. Even if this is mostly describing Mahalo, I think that the common belief that web 3.0 is semantic web has to go. Semantic web is way too unclear now (especially because I don't see a killer user benefit there) and, in the best case scenario, 10 years away. I have a feeling that something else is coming from the mountains while everybody is watching the sea. Jason's explaination is an intriguing one even if it's moving to places where hardcore web 2.0 people may not want to go (ie is reintroducing some form of central control). It's still to be seen if the need for simplicity is the key insight here. I doubt it but if Mahalo is going to be a success it will make a point for him.

Posted at 4:07PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Simone

44. Let's assume that there is some distinct phenomenon called Web 2.0, characterized by data sharing, tagging, etc. Whatever the specific definition, Web 2.0 shares with Web 1.0 the defining characteristic of being URL-specific. That is, users gotta go to a specific Web site (Flickr, Facebook, Google Earth, whatever.) to experience Web 2.0 at play.

So it seems to me that anything we call Web 3.0 would, at the very least, untether users from any specific domain. That is, all the richness associated with Web 2.0 tagging, mashups, etc. could be delivered to users in a contextually relevant manner as they travel from site to site.

Posted at 5:03PM on Oct 4th 2007 by P'ang

45. Umm... let's suppose it is the way you say it is, but there's one thing that puzzles me. You say that the "Web 3.0 throttles the "wisdom of the crowds" from turning into the "madness of the mobs" we've seen all to often, by balancing it with a respect of experts." Who are those experts, who chooses them and on which criteria?

The problem that I see is the fact that the real experts have better things to do than to "balance" information on the web.

Posted at 5:03PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Armannd

46. Great definition.
But maybe it's easier.
See my small cartoon:
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/10/it-is-that-easy.html

Bye,
Oliver

Posted at 5:09PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Oliver Widder

47. To quote a very intelligent friend of mine, the Web 3.0 is the place where all the Web 2.0 archipelagos of content become a Pangaea. Or something like that. Pretty sure that's what he said anyway. Hell, what do I know. I'm just trying to earn a living using this stuff. I'll leave it to the über-geeks to figure it out. Good try though, Jason.

Posted at 6:19PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Paul Chaney

48. I like this definition, but I'm not in complete agreement - where is the mention of social networks and user-generated content sites and other data silos will be connected? I'd like to hope that, in the future, our networks will be networked, creating a richer experience for all.

Posted at 6:32PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Jacqueline

49. Web 3.0 = Google News (machines)
Web 2.0 = Digg (people)
Web 1.0 = New York Times (original)

Web 3.0 = ZoomInfo.com (disclaimer: i work here)
Web 2.0 = LinkedIn.com
Web 1.0 = Hoovers.com

Web 3.0 = Indeed.com
Web 2.0 = Jobster.com
Web 1.0 = Monster.com

Web 3.0 applications use technology to find and utilize content that has been created by others to deliver new content with greater value and coverage than the originals alone.

Web 2.0 applications use people to find and create content to deliver new content.

Web 1.0 applications use original content.

But who cares about the definition?? The value is not in the definition of the term, but in the disruptive nature of each generation. By innovating ahead of the "content creation curve," costs are lowered, coverage is increased, and business models get disruptive. Whatever it's called...

Posted at 1:05AM on Oct 5th 2007 by Russell Glass

50. Hmm...I find this argument unconvincing. Vetted content isn't Web 3.0, it's how publishing has always worked. Scientific peer review, maybe?

Nor do I find all the arguments that say that Web 3.0 is the semantic web to be convincing.

The real difference between Web 2.0 and the semantic web is that the Semantic Web seems to think we need to add new kinds of markup to data in order to make it more meaningful to computers, while Web 2.0 seeks to identify areas where the meaning is already encoded, albeit in hidden ways. E.g. Google found meaning in link structure (a natural RDF triple); Wesabe is finding it in spending patterns.

There are sites (geni.com comes to mind) that create narrow-purpose cases where people add structured meaning, and I think we'll find lots more of these. But I think that the big difference is in the amount of noise you accept in your meaningful data, and whether you think grammar evolves from data or is imposed upon it. Web 2.0 applications are fundamentally statistical in nature, collective intelligence as derived from lots and lots of input at global scale.

See my various posts on Web 2.0 vs. the Semantic Web.

Meanwhile, Web 2.0 was a pretty crappy name for what's happening (Microsoft's name, Live Software, is probably the best description of what's happening), so I don't see why we'd want to increment it to Web 3.0. But when people ask me what I think Web 3.0 will be, I don't think of the semantic web at all.

What are things that will give a qualitative leap beyond what we experience today?

I think it's the breaking of the keyboard/screen paradigm, and the world in which collective intelligence emerges not from people typing on keyboards but from the instrumentation of our activities.

In this sense, I'd say that Wesabe and Mint, which turn our credit card into a sensor telling us about tracks we're leaving in the real world, or Jaiku, which turns our phone into a sensor for a smart address book, or Norwich Union's "Pay as you drive" insurance, are more early signals of something I'd call "Web 3.0" than Semantic Web applications are. Add in a dash of Nuance's voice recognition and the Nintendo Wii's gestural interface, and you are starting to build the stone soup that might one day be called Web 3.0.

Let's just call the Semantic Web the Semantic Web, and not muddy the water by trying to call it Web 3.0, especially when the points of contrast are actually the same points that I used to distinguish Web 2.0 from Web 1.5. (I've always said that Web 2.0 = Web 1.0, with the dot com bust being a side trip that got it wrong.)

Posted at 1:40AM on Oct 5th 2007 by Tim O'Reilly

51. I think the most important thing that's going to happen in the future is web 0.0. Web 0.0 is a web application built by a sole proprietor, without venture funding that is profitable, self supporting, and provides a sustainable income for the owner/author. The technologies and details do not matter---a skillful author will pick and choose what's appropriate. Web 0.0 is founded in fair terms and conditions, ethical ownership, and a personal interest of the owner/author. Web 0.0 will be the predecessor of 0.0 businesses in the real world as a more kindly society exchanges corporate largesse for a direct, personal experience. I hope people will seek out and support web 0.0 entrepreneurs. People who suck the teat of venture capital will find Web 0.0 confusing and frustrating and I further define web "X.0" as any venture funded internet company that is not a sole proprietorship that is formed around some compelling technology or story for the benefit of investors.

Posted at 11:34AM on Oct 5th 2007 by John e.

52. C'mon man...What you think we are ?? bunch of idiots ??

Posted at 4:59AM on Oct 6th 2007 by Jason Haris

53. You just seem to be an ex-journalist that doesn't want to lose money...

Right now, I like not having editors. Don't editors have their own bias? Why not get right to what people care about? That's right, I said people, not a select few, or "gifted individuals", as you say.

Posted at 12:41PM on Oct 6th 2007 by Kabren Levinson

54. Right, that's one way to put it. If Web 1.0 was about linking information then Web 2.0 is definitely about linking people. If Web 2.0 is about linking people, Web 3.0 will be about connecting and making semantic sense of people's knowledge. Bringing together two disjointed pieces of content, computing, and creating new incremental value. For example, you could ask a semantic engine what the difference between The Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower is and the engine would find both pieces of knowledge and calculate the difference.

-arnaud

Posted at 8:15AM on Oct 7th 2007 by Arnaud Fischer

55. Web 2.0 was about the socialization of technology. But more than that, it was the 2000s version of the Apple II -- all about "taking back what's ours" from the gatekeepers (the Apple II blew open the hallowed doors of IT, unleashing do-it-yourself data dissemination -- Lotus 123 instead of mainframes, MS Word instead of typing pools, DTP instead of big publishing houses, Flash instead of cell animation, and ultimately HTML and Web 2.0 instead of Arbitron/Neilson ratings).

The online video purveyors (YouTube, et al) succeeded because now anyone can make or copy a video and not need the glitz and money of Hollywood to get attention. Blogs, wikis, et al, are about giving access to reading audiences without the stodginess (or gimme-gimme-gimme) of the FOX/NBC/ABCs, NY/LA Timeses, and TV Guide/USA Todays of the world. Whether the federal courts and RIAA liked it or not, that's what file sharing was all about -- taking CBS/Capital/EMI records out of the loop between listeners and music. Note that Napster as a social phenomenon is gone, but file sharing and freely trading MP3s (illegally or not) among like-minded groups is not dead and never will be.

To link web 2.0 together, in the same breath, with the kind of editorial control and refinement/self-protection of pre-web media -- and call it Web 3.0 -- is ludicrous. As soon as that reality happens (oh, and it will), the real Web 3.0 will rear up and strike off toward some other kind of freedom from corporatization/monetization/squelchification. The article got it wrong, Web 3.0 will be about decommoditization. Like everything else bleeding edge, we won't recognize it until it happens.

Don't kid yourselves that adding a level of control to something that was initially a way to escape the constraints of control will stay controlled for long. No matter whether we like the ramifications or not -- the potential for libelous, criminal, or cowardly behavior -- Web 2.0 is not about being commoditized. Package it and the moving finger will move on, leaving Yahoo, Google, (and maybe Facebook/MySpace/Flickr/Del.icio.us) and all the other whores wondering "where did it go."

The dot.bomb was not about the sudden collapse of the bubble (yes, that happened, but ...), it was about the migration of fed-up end users from the control of venture-capital-based economics. Start-ups without serious at-risk investor-driven funding faired well. Web 2.0 faired well until it became merely another source of advertising revenue (and buy-ins/buy-outs by the big corporations).

Web 3.0 will be none of these things. It will not be trendy or polished or capital intensive or fee based. It will be long-haired, young, full of warts, underfunded (or free) and grass-roots. And once again, it will steal away the very user audience the trendy/polished/capital-intensive/fee-based Wall Street bloat-bags desperately desire/need, leaving some to cry "foul" and others to figure out how to tap into it as a business.

The cycle is endless. And we still read Kahlil Gibran because -- even before the Titanic sank with his manuscripts (by then collectors items) -- he was right. The moving finger writes and having writ, never pauses to see if what it wrote could be commoditized.