So what is Web 2.0 anyway?

This blog has been running for a few weeks now, so I thought it was time to provide some background. You might wonder: how am I defining Web 2.0? What kinds of sites will be featured here? What topics will be covered? And, most importantly, what won't be covered?

For starters, the best place to get a definition of Web 2.0 is from the guy who invented the term in the first place. Tim O'Reilly posted rather definitively way back in 2005. He essentially makes this distinction: Web 2.0 is a Web platform that harnesses collective intelligence, is data-driven, provides seamless upgrades, benefits from lightweight programming models, works on multiple devices, and has a rich interface. That's a lot of stuff, but it covers the idea pretty thoroughly and completely.

I'd like to contend that Web 2.0 is a concept - like a really good photograph or a brilliant user interface - that you "know when you see it" and can recognize it from afar. A Web 2.0 application like Basecamp just has the feel of a second generation Web site. I also view Web 2.0 as a concept that's still evolving. A site like Buzzword might not have all the pieces of Web 2.0 as described above, but it certainly has most of them. I feel that a site can skip some of the social networking aspects if they would degrade the user experience, or not emphasize user experience as much if the social networking is robust enough.

As for what I will cover: it's pretty much anything related to the Web. I'll cover Web 1.0 companies such as AOL if I think they are trying to move into a Web 2.0 model, and I'll covering leading edge Web 2.0 properties such as Twitterfone that actually go beyond the Web entirely if they show how the Internet is becoming more pervasive in our lives. I'll cover FaceBook apps, mash-ups, Yahoo news, and Google projects in the context of how they make the Web a more vital part of our work and leisure time.

But here's what I won't cover. You probably won't find a lot of coverage on e-commerce sites like Amazon, although I will certainly cover their Web 2.0 features and services. There's just not a lot to say about a company that sells products online, and it ends up taking on a marketing flavor that is just not that interesting in terms of technology and advancing the Web 2.0 concept. I'm also less likely to cover Web 2.0 sites that are obviously just trying to jump on the latest fad, or attract attention by being offensive or controversial. I like Internet memes, but I don't like perpetuating scandal. Of course, I also won't cover gadgets, Big Tech news, bio-science, or any non-Web topic that is already well covered elsewhere.

And here's where you can provide feedback - what would you like me to cover? What Web 2.0 sites have you been trying to find? Which ones would you use if they did exist? Post in comments to get the ideas going and to add your own definition of Web 2.0.