thought web 2.0 was a nebulous term?

my friend adam passed along this insane job description for “social media officer” at the university of toronto.

Minimum five years experience working in the field of new media from a content perspective, including web design/architecture, preferably in a large organization. A high degree of knowledge of and experience with “Web 2.0” tools (Wikis, RSS, Podcasting) is essential as is intuition for continued developments in new technologies — especially “Web 2.0” and “Web 3.0” technologies. (Intuition about the possible direction of “Web 4.0” is also important) Equally essential is a high degree of demonstrated, successful project management experience.

what? did they read some joke about web 3.0 and think it was serious? the term “web 2.0” was used to describe changes on the web after they happened. you can’t just talk web 3.0 or web 4.0 into existence. besides, web 2.0 basically means everything and nothing, using it as a naming convention is like building your house on sand.

remember the hype and vapourware and non-existant business models of the 90s that led to the first dot com crash? yeah. this isn’t a good sign.

fono says: man, this means i can’t make jokes about web 3.0 anymore. to be leading edge you really have to talk about web 27.0 now.

  1. on a name (web 2.0 versus the social web) | kay.four.tee.three // kate raynes-goldie - July 29, 2007

    […] thought web 2.0 was a nebulous term? […]

Leave a Reply