Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0

By Graham Cormode, Balachander Krishnamurthy. First Monday, 2008

693 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Web 2.0 is a buzzword introduced in 2003-04 which is commonly used to encompass various novel phenomena on the World Wide Web. Although largely a marketing term, some of the key attributes associated with Web 2.0 include the growth of social networks, bi-directional communication, various 'glue' technologies, and significant diversity in content types. We are not aware of a technical comparison between Web 1.0 and 2.0. While most of Web 2.0 runs on the same substrate as 1.0, there are some key differences. We capture those differences and their implications for technical work in this paper. Our goal is to identify the primary differences leading to the properties of interest in 2.0 to be characterized. We identify novel challenges due to the different structures of Web 2.0 sites, richer methods of user interaction, new technologies, and fundamentally different philosophy. Although a significant amount of past work can be reapplied, some critical thinking is needed for the networking community to analyze the challenges of this new and rapidly evolving environment.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dce4a56c8d97c8664a67448b12a2642235d7102c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

How Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability Impact Travelers' Social Media Involvement and Revisit Intention (2013, background): “In this burgeoning digital world, the emergence of Web 2.0 allows Internet users to create, edit, share, and view information online (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008).”
Exposure to Extremist Online Content Could Lead to Violent Radicalization:A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence (2018, neutral): “…media encompassed static webpages with limited interaction features (“Web 1.0”), as well as social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), blogs, wikis, video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube), and discussion forums, which would all ﬁt under the “Web 2.0” umbrella (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008).”
A framework for interpreting social media interactions in the public sector (2013, background): “The difference to other e Government ap plications (such as static websites as publishing mechanisms for agency information) is a higher degree of interactivity as well as content pro duction by both government and citizens (Cormode & Krishanmurthy, 2008; O'Reilly, 2007).”
Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen's vision of authentic technology-enabled learning (2013, background): “Since the time these ideas were first published (1996), technology has evolved dramatically (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008; Deans, 2009) and Web 2.0 tools now offer almost unlimited opportunities for students to collaborate and problem solve together (Bull et al., 2009; Schrum & Levin, 2009).”
Characterizing privacy in online social networks (2008, background): “Previous work does conjecture that thirdparty aggregation will be used less for OSNs because they encourage users to “live” on their site [3].”
Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship in a Digital Age (2009, background): “Web 1.0 predominantly, although not exclusively, involved hierarchically arranged websites with information largely controlled by a small group of content providers (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008).”
The role of social media in sex education: Dispatches from queer, trans, and racialized communities (2018, methodology): “This differed from the hierarchical models of Web 1.0, in which a select few typically generated content and audience members were seen as passive consumers (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008).”