Business networking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In businesses, networking is the sharing of information or services between people, companies, or groups. It is also a way for individuals to grow their relationships for their job or companies.^[1] As a result, connections or a network can be built and useful for individuals in their professional or personal lives. Networking helps build meaningful relationships that are beneficial to all involved parties to exchange information and services. Gaining new significant business acquaintances can be obtained by networking meetings, social media, personal networking, and business networking.^[2]

In the second half of the twentieth century, networking was promoted to help business people to build their social capital. In the US, workplace equity advocates encouraged business networking by members of marginalized groups (e.g., women, African-Americans, etc.) to identify and address the challenges barring them from professional success. Mainstream business literature subsequently adopted the terms and concepts, promoted them as pathways to success for all career climbers.

Overview

There are many ways to network, whether the traditional way of making connections through a group or club or non-traditional through hobbies or unrelated events. They all serve the same purpose of making close and valuable connections that allow for an equal exchange of knowledge or advice.^[3] Business networks are types of social networks which are developed to help executives connect with other managers and entrepreneurs to further each other's interests  by forming mutually beneficial business relationships. By doing so, they can both each other's business interests by forming mutually beneficial business relationships. Business networking is a way of leveraging your business and personal connections to help you bring in new customers, vendors or to get great advice for running your business.^[4] There are several prominent business networking organizations that create models of networking events. When followed, the models allow the business person to build new business relationships and generate business opportunities simultaneously. A professional network service is an implementation of information technology in support of business networking. Chambers of Commerce and other business-oriented groups may also organize networking activities. However, there are multiple networking groups, and there is no one-size-fits-all for every person or company. The models will vary based on their field of business and what they want their outcomes/goals to be.

It is important to note; networking works mainly in favor of small businesses. The owners have to dabble with a variety of job functions in a small set-up. When they meet up with like-minded people, they learn from their experiences and guidance on essential. They can even find partners and angel investors through a networking group of experienced business owners. A plethora of networking events takes place in every country where entrepreneurs can meet, expand their affiliations, educate themselves and feel empowered. Adopting smart tactics can go a long way in securing partnerships, friendships and acquaintances.^[5] Collaboration is also a huge part of networking. According to Sorenson, Ritch L., et al. it can create stronger relationships, better conflict management and build better connections.^[6] Networking works best when supported by good conflict resolution and collaboration when trying to solve a problem.

History

Before online business networking, face-to-face networking was the only option for business people. This was achieved through a number of techniques such as trade show marketing and loyalty programs. Though these techniques have been proven to still be an effective source of making connections and growing a business, many companies now focus more on online marketing due to the ability to track every detail of a campaign and justify the expenditure involved in setting up one of these campaigns.^[7]

Ethics

Networking can be an effective way for job-seekers to gain a competitive edge over others in the job-market. The skilled networker cultivates personal relationships with prospective employers and selection panelists, in the hope that these personal affections will influence future hiring decisions. This form of networking has raised ethical concerns. The objection is that it constitutes an attempt to corrupt formal selection processes. The networker is accused of seeking non-meritocratic advantage over other candidates; advantage that is based on personal fondness rather than on any objective appraisal of which candidate is most qualified for the position.^[8][9]

There are some risks that must be considered when using and publishing on social media, because companies can be held liable for the content posted by their employees on blogs or social networks. According to Olswang it is necessary to prepare a clear privacy policy while also remaining compliant to protecting company data and adhering to the social media platform's privacy policy.^[10] This ensures the networker can still build their connections and not risk damaging the relationships they've built.

Networked business

Many businesses utilize networking as a key element in their marketing plan. It helps to develop a strong feeling of trust between those involved and plays a big part in raising the profile of a company. Suppliers and businesses can be seen as networked businesses, and will tend to source the business and their suppliers through their existing relationships. As well as with the companies they work closely with. Networked businesses tend to be open, random, and supportive, whereas those relying on hierarchical, traditional managed approaches are closed, selective, and controlling. These phrases were first used by Thomas Power, businessman and chairman of Ecademy, an online business network, in 2009.^[11]

Additionally, social media has made a positive impact on networking as it also has allowed for more openness and inclusivity. To be successful with social media, it is vital to consider and plan an approach that can be maintainable and reliable.^[12] The best method is to put time aside weekly and make a plan for a few days a week and block off time to improve a social media approach.^[12]

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "1top-oldtattoo-2" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 1top-oldtattoo-2+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/1top-oldtattoo-2/CA%2BqAbtE72eiG%2BWCesbg2%3DhSn3gQUjh3d7QfUPCDVLfcv8VAXyA%40mail.gmail.com.

Social network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Social networking)

This article is about the theoretical concept as used in the social and behavioral sciences. For social networking sites, see Social networking service. For the 2010 movie, see The Social Network. For other uses, see Social network (disambiguation).

Evolution graph of a social network: Barabási model.

Part of a series on
Sociology
History Outline Index

Key themes

Perspectives

Branches

Methods

Sociologists

Lists

Society portal

v t e

Part of a series on
Network science
Theory
Graph Complex network Contagion Small-world Scale-free Community structure Percolation Evolution Controllability Graph drawing Social capital Link analysis Optimization Reciprocity Closure Homophily Transitivity Preferential attachment Balance theory Network effect Social influence
Network types
Informational (computing) Telecommunication Transport Social Scientific collaboration Biological Artificial neural Interdependent Semantic Spatial Dependency Flow on-Chip
Graphs
Features Clique Component Cut Cycle Data structure Edge Loop Neighborhood Path Vertex Adjacency list / matrix Incidence list / matrix Types Bipartite Complete Directed Hyper Labeled Multi Random Weighted
Metrics Algorithms
Centrality Degree Motif Clustering Degree distribution Assortativity Distance Modularity Efficiency
Models
Topology Random graph Erdős–Rényi Barabási–Albert Bianconi–Barabási Fitness model Watts–Strogatz Exponential random (ERGM) Random geometric (RGG) Hyperbolic (HGN) Hierarchical Stochastic block Blockmodeling Maximum entropy Soft configuration LFR Benchmark Dynamics Boolean network agent based Epidemic/SIR
Lists Categories
Topics Software Network scientists Category:Network theory Category:Graph theory
v t e

A social network is a social structure made up of a set of social actors (such as individuals or organizations), sets of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors. The social network perspective provides a set of methods for analyzing the structure of whole social entities as well as a variety of theories explaining the patterns observed in these structures.^[1] The study of these structures uses social network analysis to identify local and global patterns, locate influential entities, and examine network dynamics.

Social networks and the analysis of them is an inherently interdisciplinary academic field which emerged from social psychology, sociology, statistics, and graph theory. Georg Simmel authored early structural theories in sociology emphasizing the dynamics of triads and "web of group affiliations".^[2] Jacob Moreno is credited with developing the first sociograms in the 1930s to study interpersonal relationships. These approaches were mathematically formalized in the 1950s and theories and methods of social networks became pervasive in the social and behavioral sciences by the 1980s.^[1][3] Social network analysis is now one of the major paradigms in contemporary sociology, and is also employed in a number of other social and formal sciences. Together with other complex networks, it forms part of the nascent field of network science.^[4][5]

Overview

The social network is a theoretical construct useful in the social sciences to study relationships between individuals, groups, organizations, or even entire societies (social units, see differentiation). The term is used to describe a social structure determined by such interactions. The ties through which any given social unit connects represent the convergence of the various social contacts of that unit. This theoretical approach is, necessarily, relational. An axiom of the social network approach to understanding social interaction is that social phenomena should be primarily conceived and investigated through the properties of relations between and within units, instead of the properties of these units themselves. Thus, one common criticism of social network theory is that individual agency is often ignored^[6] although this may not be the case in practice (see agent-based modeling). Precisely because many different types of relations, singular or in combination, form these network configurations, network analytics are useful to a broad range of research enterprises. In social science, these fields of study include, but are not limited to anthropology, biology, communication studies, economics, geography, information science, organizational studies, social psychology, sociology, and sociolinguistics.

History

In the late 1890s, both Émile Durkheim and Ferdinand Tönnies foreshadowed the idea of social networks in their theories and research of social groups. Tönnies argued that social groups can exist as personal and direct social ties that either link individuals who share values and belief (Gemeinschaft, German, commonly translated as "community") or impersonal, formal, and instrumental social links (Gesellschaft, German, commonly translated as "society").^[7] Durkheim gave a non-individualistic explanation of social facts, arguing that social phenomena arise when interacting individuals constitute a reality that can no longer be accounted for in terms of the properties of individual actors.^[8] Georg Simmel, writing at the turn of the twentieth century, pointed to the nature of networks and the effect of network size on interaction and examined the likelihood of interaction in loosely knit networks rather than groups.^[9]

Moreno's sociogram of a 2nd grade class

Major developments in the field can be seen in the 1930s by several groups in psychology, anthropology, and mathematics working independently.^[6][10][11] In psychology, in the 1930s, Jacob L. Moreno began systematic recording and analysis of social interaction in small groups, especially classrooms and work groups (see sociometry). In anthropology, the foundation for social network theory is the theoretical and ethnographic work of Bronislaw Malinowski,^[12] Alfred Radcliffe-Brown,^[13][14] and Claude Lévi-Strauss.^[15] A group of social anthropologists associated with Max Gluckman and the Manchester School, including John A. Barnes,^[16] J. Clyde Mitchell and Elizabeth Bott Spillius,^[17][18] often are credited with performing some of the first fieldwork from which network analyses were performed, investigating community networks in southern Africa, India and the United Kingdom.^[6] Concomitantly, British anthropologist S. F. Nadel codified a theory of social structure that was influential in later network analysis.^[19] In sociology, the early (1930s) work of Talcott Parsons set the stage for taking a relational approach to understanding social structure.^[20][21] Later, drawing upon Parsons' theory, the work of sociologist Peter Blau provides a strong impetus for analyzing the relational ties of social units with his work on social exchange theory.^[22][23][24]

By the 1970s, a growing number of scholars worked to combine the different tracks and traditions. One group consisted of sociologist Harrison White and his students at the Harvard University Department of Social Relations. Also independently active in the Harvard Social Relations department at the time were Charles Tilly, who focused on networks in political and community sociology and social movements, and Stanley Milgram, who developed the "six degrees of separation" thesis.^[25] Mark Granovetter^[26] and Barry Wellman^[27] are among the former students of White who elaborated and championed the analysis of social networks.^{[26][28][29][30]}

Beginning in the late 1990s, social network analysis experienced work by sociologists, political scientists, and physicists such as Duncan J. Watts, Albert-László Barabási, Peter Bearman, Nicholas A. Christakis, James H. Fowler, and others, developing and applying new models and methods to emerging data available about online social networks, as well as "digital traces" regarding face-to-face networks.

Levels of analysis

Self-organization of a network, based on Nagler, Levina, & Timme (2011)^[31] Centrality

In general, social networks are self-organizing, emergent, and complex, such that a globally coherent pattern appears from the local interaction of the elements that make up the system.^[32][33] These patterns become more apparent as network size increases. However, a global network analysis^[34] of, for example, all interpersonal relationships in the world is not feasible and is likely to contain so much information as to be uninformative. Practical limitations of computing power, ethics and participant recruitment and payment also limit the scope of a social network analysis.^[35][36] The nuances of a local system may be lost in a large network analysis, hence the quality of information may be more important than its scale for understanding network properties. Thus, social networks are analyzed at the scale relevant to the researcher's theoretical question. Although levels of analysis are not necessarily mutually exclusive, there are three general levels into which networks may fall: micro-level, meso-level, and macro-level. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "1top-oldtattoo-2" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 1top-oldtattoo-2+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/1top-oldtattoo-2/CA%2BqAbtFtZ4ui-oENUrmcrgNvaTfLj9oj_Y-MfQPY5yds5eaFgw%40mail.gmail.com.

Web 1.0

Web 1.0

Web 1.0 is a retronym referring to the first stage of the World Wide Web's evolution, from roughly 1989 to 2004. According to Graham Cormode and Balachander Krishnamurthy, "content creators were few in Web 1.0 with the vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content".^[14] Personal web pages were common, consisting mainly of static pages hosted on ISP-run web servers, or on free web hosting services such as Tripod and the now-defunct GeoCities.^[15][16] With Web 2.0, it became common for average web users to have social-networking profiles (on sites such as Myspace and Facebook) and personal blogs (sites like Blogger, Tumblr and LiveJournal) through either a low-cost web hosting service or through a dedicated host. In general, content was generated dynamically, allowing readers to comment directly on pages in a way that was not common previously.^{[citation needed]}

Some Web 2.0 capabilities were present in the days of Web 1.0, but were implemented differently. For example, a Web 1.0 site may have had a guestbook page for visitor comments, instead of a comment section at the end of each page (typical of Web 2.0). During Web 1.0, server performance and bandwidth had to be considered—lengthy comment threads on multiple pages could potentially slow down an entire site. Terry Flew, in his third edition of New Media, described the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 as a

"move from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from publishing to participation, from web content as the outcome of large up-front investment to an ongoing and interactive process, and from content management systems to links based on "tagging" website content using keywords (folksonomy)."

Flew believed these factors formed the trends that resulted in the onset of the Web 2.0 "craze".^[17]

Characteristics

Some common design elements of a Web 1.0 site include:^[18]

• Static pages rather than dynamic HTML.^[19]
• Content provided from the server's filesystem rather than a relational database management system (RDBMS).
• Pages built using Server Side Includes or Common Gateway Interface (CGI) instead of a web application written in a dynamic programming language such as Perl, PHP, Python or Ruby.^{[clarification needed]}
• The use of HTML 3.2-era elements such as frames and tables to position and align elements on a page. These were often used in combination with spacer GIFs.^{[citation needed]}
• Proprietary HTML extensions, such as the <blink> and <marquee> tags, introduced during the first browser war.
• Online guestbooks.
• GIF buttons, graphics (typically 88×31 pixels in size) promoting web browsers, operating systems, text editors and various other products.
• HTML forms sent via email. Support for server side scripting was rare on shared servers during this period. To provide a feedback mechanism for web site visitors, mailto forms were used. A user would fill in a form, and upon clicking the form's submit button, their email client would launch and attempt to send an email containing the form's details. The popularity and complications of the mailto protocol led browser developers to incorporate email clients into their browsers.^[20]

Web 2.0

The term "Web 2.0" was coined by Darcy DiNucci, an information architecture consultant, in her January 1999 article "Fragmented Future":^[3][21]

"The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven."

Writing when Palm Inc. introduced its first web-capable personal digital assistant (supporting Web access with WAP), DiNucci saw the Web "fragmenting" into a future that extended beyond the browser/PC combination it was identified with. She focused on how the basic information structure and hyper-linking mechanism introduced by HTTP would be used by a variety of devices and platforms. As such, her "2.0" designation refers to the next version of the Web that does not directly relate to the term's current use.

The term Web 2.0 did not resurface until 2002.^[22][23][24] Companies such as Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Google, made it easy to connect and engage in online transactions. Web 2.0 introduced new features, such as multimedia content and interactive web applications, which mainly consisted of two-dimensional screens.^[25] Kinsley and Eric focus on the concepts currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a universal, standards-based integration platform".^[24] In 2004, the term began to popularize when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, John Battelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform", where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business for you".^[26] They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. O'Reilly and Battelle contrasted Web 2.0 with what they called "Web 1.0". They associated this term with the business models of Netscape and the Encyclopædia Britannica Online. For example,

"Netscape framed 'the web as platform' in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the 'horseless carriage' framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a 'webtop' to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.^[27]"

In short, Netscape focused on creating software, releasing updates and bug fixes, and distributing it to the end users. O'Reilly contrasted this with Google, a company that did not, at the time, focus on producing end-user software, but instead on providing a service based on data, such as the links that Web page authors make between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer Web searches based on reputation through its "PageRank" algorithm. Unlike software, which undergoes scheduled releases, such services are constantly updated, a process called "the perpetual beta". A similar difference can be seen between the Encyclopædia Britannica Online and Wikipedia – while the Britannica relies upon experts to write articles and release them periodically in publications, Wikipedia relies on trust in (sometimes anonymous) community members to constantly write and edit content. Wikipedia editors are not required to have educational credentials, such as degrees, in the subjects in which they are editing. Wikipedia is not based on subject-matter expertise, but rather on an adaptation of the open source software adage "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". This maxim is stating that if enough users are able to look at a software product's code (or a website), then these users will be able to fix any "bugs" or other problems. The Wikipedia volunteer editor community produces, edits, and updates articles constantly. Web 2.0 conferences have been held every year since 2004, attracting entrepreneurs, representatives from large companies, tech experts and technology reporters.

The popularity of Web 2.0 was acknowledged by 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year (You).^[28] That is, TIME selected the masses of users who were participating in content creation on social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites.

In the cover story, Lev Grossman explains:

"It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world but also change the way the world changes."

Characteristics

Instead of merely reading a Web 2.0 site, a user is invited to contribute to the site's content by commenting on published articles, or creating a user account or profile on the site, which may enable increased participation. By increasing emphasis on these already-extant capabilities, they encourage users to rely more on their browser for user interface, application software ("apps") and file storage facilities. This has been called "network as platform" computing.^[5] Major features of Web 2.0 include social networking websites, self-publishing platforms (e.g., WordPress' easy-to-use blog and website creation tools), "tagging" (which enables users to label websites, videos or photos in some fashion), "like" buttons (which enable a user to indicate that they are pleased by online content), and social bookmarking.

Users can provide the data and exercise some control over what they share on a Web 2.0 site.^[5][29] These sites may have an "architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.^[4][5] Users can add value in many ways, such as uploading their own content on blogs, consumer-evaluation platforms (e.g. Amazon and eBay), news websites (e.g. responding in the comment section), social networking services, media-sharing websites (e.g. YouTube and Instagram) and collaborative-writing projects.^[30] Some scholars argue that cloud computing is an example of Web 2.0 because it is simply an implication of computing on the Internet.^[31]

Edit box interface through which anyone could edit a Wikipedia article

Web 2.0 offers almost all users the same freedom to contribute,^[32] which can lead to effects that are varyingly perceived as productive by members of a given community or not, which can lead to emotional distress and disagreement. The impossibility of excluding group members who do not contribute to the provision of goods (i.e., to the creation of a user-generated website) from sharing the benefits (of using the website) gives rise to the possibility that serious members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and "free ride" on the contributions of others.^[33] This requires what is sometimes called radical trust by the management of the Web site.

Encyclopaedia Britannica calls Wikipedia "the epitome of the so-called Web 2.0" and describes what many view as the ideal of a Web 2.0 platform as "an egalitarian environment where the web of social software enmeshes users in both their real and virtual-reality workplaces."^[34]

According to Best,^[35] the characteristics of Web 2.0 are rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, Web standards, and scalability. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom,^[36] and collective intelligence^[37] by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0. Some websites require users to contribute user-generated content to have access to the website, to discourage "free riding".

A list of ways that people can volunteer to improve Mass Effect Wiki on Wikia, an example of content generated by users working collaboratively

The key features of Web 2.0 include:^{[citation needed]}

1. Folksonomy – free classification of information; allows users to collectively classify and find information (e.g. "tagging" of websites, images, videos or links)
2. Rich user experience – dynamic content that is responsive to user input (e.g., a user can "click" on an image to enlarge it or find out more information)
3. User participation – information flows two ways between the site owner and site users by means of evaluation, review, and online commenting. Site users also typically create user-generated content for others to see (e.g., Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that anyone can write articles for or edit)
4. Software as a service (SaaS) – Web 2.0 sites developed APIs to allow automated usage, such as by a Web "app" (software application) or a mashup
5. Mass participation – near-universal web access leads to differentiation of concerns, from the traditional Internet user base (who tended to be hackers and computer hobbyists) to a wider variety of users, drastically changing the audience of internet users.

Technologies

The client-side (Web browser) technologies used in Web 2.0 development include Ajax and JavaScript frameworks. Ajax programming uses JavaScript and the Document Object Model (DOM) to update selected regions of the page area without undergoing a full page reload. To allow users to continue interacting with the page, communications such as data requests going to the server are separated from data coming back to the page (asynchronously).

Otherwise, the user would have to routinely wait for the data to come back before they can do anything else on that page, just as a user has to wait for a page to complete the reload. This also increases the overall performance of the site, as the sending of requests can complete quicker independent of blocking and queueing required to send data back to the client. The data fetched by an Ajax request is typically formatted in XML or JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format, two widely used structured data formats. Since both of these formats are natively understood by JavaScript, a programmer can easily use them to transmit structured data in their Web application.

When this data is received via Ajax, the JavaScript program then uses the Document Object Model to dynamically update the Web page based on the new data, allowing for rapid and interactive user experience. In short, using these techniques, web designers can make their pages function like desktop applications. For example, Google Docs uses this technique to create a Web-based word processor.

As a widely available plug-in independent of W3C standards (the World Wide Web Consortium is the governing body of Web standards and protocols), Adobe Flash was capable of doing many things that were not possible pre-HTML5. Of Flash's many capabilities, the most commonly used was its ability to integrate streaming multimedia into HTML pages. With the introduction of HTML5 in 2010 and the growing concerns with Flash's security, the role of Flash became obsolete, with browser support ending on December 31, 2020.

In addition to Flash and Ajax, JavaScript/Ajax frameworks have recently become a very popular means of creating Web 2.0 sites. At their core, these frameworks use the same technology as JavaScript, Ajax, and the DOM. However, frameworks smooth over inconsistencies between Web browsers and extend the functionality available to developers. Many of them also come with customizable, prefabricated 'widgets' that accomplish such common tasks as picking a date from a calendar, displaying a data chart, or making a tabbed panel.

On the server-side, Web 2.0 uses many of the same technologies as Web 1.0. Languages such as Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, as well as Enterprise Java (J2EE) and Microsoft.NET Framework, are used by developers to output data dynamically using information from files and databases. This allows websites and web services to share machine readable formats such as XML (Atom, RSS, etc.) and JSON. When data is available in one of these formats, another website can use it to integrate a portion of that site's functionality.

Concepts

Web 2.0 can be described in three parts:

• Rich web application — defines the experience brought from desktop to browser, whether it is "rich" from a graphical point of view or a usability/interactivity or features point of view.^{[contradictory]}
• Web-oriented architecture (WOA) — defines how Web 2.0 applications expose their functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate the functionality providing a set of much richer applications. Examples are feeds, RSS feeds, web services, mashups.
• Social Web — defines how Web 2.0 websites tend to interact much more with the end user and make the end user an integral part of the website, either by adding his or her profile, adding comments on content, uploading new content, or adding user-generated content (e.g., personal digital photos).

As such, Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client- and server-side software, content syndication and the use of network protocols. Standards-oriented Web browsers may use plug-ins and software extensions to handle the content and user interactions. Web 2.0 sites provide users with information storage, creation, and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment known as "Web 1.0".

Web 2.0 sites include the following features and techniques, referred to as the acronym SLATES by Andrew McAfee:^[38]

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "1top-oldtattoo-2" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 1top-oldtattoo-2+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/1top-oldtattoo-2/CA%2BqAbtFRSxLBhfSMfwPseHO-vUByTw3e-3zgBto_Eh423z_v%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

Web 2.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A tag cloud (a typical Web 2.0 phenomenon in itself) presenting Web 2.0 themes

Web 2.0 (also known as participative (or participatory)^[1] web and social web)^[2] refers to websites that emphasize user-generated content, ease of use, participatory culture and interoperability (i.e., compatibility with other products, systems, and devices) for end users.

The term was coined by Darcy DiNucci in 1999^[3] and later popularized by Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty at the first Web 2.0 Conference in 2004.^[4][5][6] Although the term mimics the numbering of software versions, it does not denote a formal change in the nature of the World Wide Web,^[7] but merely describes a general change that occurred during this period as interactive websites proliferated and came to overshadow the older, more static websites of the original Web.^[8]

A Web 2.0 website allows users to interact and collaborate with each other through social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community. This contrasts the first generation of Web 1.0-era websites where people were limited to viewing content in a passive manner. Examples of Web 2.0 features include social networking sites or social media sites (e.g., Facebook), blogs, wikis, folksonomies ("tagging" keywords on websites and links), video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube), image sharing sites (e.g., Flickr), hosted services, Web applications ("apps"), collaborative consumption platforms, and mashup applications.

Whether Web 2.0 is substantially different from prior Web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who describes the term as jargon.^[9] His original vision of the Web was "a collaborative medium, a place where we [could] all meet and read and write".^[10][11] On the other hand, the term Semantic Web (sometimes referred to as Web 3.0)^[12] was coined by Berners-Lee to refer to a web of content where the meaning can be processed by machines.^[13

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "1top-oldtattoo-2" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 1top-oldtattoo-2+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/1top-oldtattoo-2/CA%2BqAbtHnS4CoD_sbj3W%3DPK%2BSVrdR9cSzNVUkyU8Zy8dSUM1j-A%40mail.gmail.com.