Web 2.0®

Web 2.0®: I’d like to commend the CMP attorneys for defending their “pending trademark” of the term Web 2.0®. Despite the obvious fact that I’m no a lawyer, here’s my take on it: Tim O’Reilly popularized the term and started a commercial venture with it two years ago. The corporate entity behind the term and conference clearly should be in control of where the term is used. In fact, I think anyone who uses the term Web 2.0® in any way should be sued by CMP and should be prepared to spend their kid’s college tuition defending themselves. I can’t applaud the CMP lawyers enough for their courageous efforts to discourage everyone from using the term Web 2.0®. I, for one, am happy to adhere to their demands.

rexblog flashbacks:  Why the term Web 2.0 means nothing and Yes, Virginia, there is a Web 2.0.

Update: The defense begins. It’s the use of Web 2.0® in the title of a conference they argue is their property: “Just as O’Reilly couldn’t decide to launch a LinuxWorld conference,
other event producers can’t use “Web 2.0 Conference,” the name of our
event.”
I agree. (However, does this mean O’Reilly is considering removing the word “Linux” from the titles of books it publishes?) I think consumers need to be protected from the misapplication of the “Web 2.0” term so, again, I consider the attorneys to be heroes here. I mean, if anyone could use the term Web 2.0® in a conference title, then people who go to those conferences might believe that Web 2.0® is something other than what one would learn by attending an official Web 2.0® conference. And (isn’t this obvious?) one can only imagine the mass confusion that would result if anyone could start defining what Web 2.0® is? No, I agree with the lawyers on this one:  there should definitely be an official Web 2.0® conference at which the definition of exactly what Web 2.0® means can be determined and defended.

Wikiwhacking

Wikiwhacking: Ross Mayfield: “Wikipedia isn’t dead” (I agree, but don’t understand the headline, however).

Dave Winer: “Now if the strongest advocates of Wikipedia would start talking realistically about the weaknesses of the approach in addition to the strengths, the utopian stuff, we might be able to work together to improve it. But there’s no evidence of that in the latest round.”

I am a Wikipedia zealot and I spend a great deal of my evening hours tending an ambitious project, Smallbusiness.com, much of which resides on a Mediawiki platform. However, I’m in agreement with Dave on this one, especially regarding Wikipedia. As much as I’m a wiki-zealot, I realize that Wikipedia can often be misunderstood and the information found there can be misapplied by casual visitors who don’t — despite disclaimers blaring out — realize what’s taking place. Lots of people end up there after a Google search and merely see Wikipedia as “a free encyclopedia.”

Used correctly — understood correctly — Wikipedia is one of the true wonders of the Internet. However, my rule still stands: “Use Wikipedia as a gateway to facts, not a source of them.” The same is true for what you learn in blogs or the New York Times, for that matter. That so much information and knowledge is available in so many forms and from so many sources is utopian. However, there is a downside to that, also, if everyone treats everything as having the same level of authority.

Technorati Tags: ,

TV blogging

TV blogging: Except for a few snippets, I skipped this season of American Idol — come to think of it, I skipped all the previous seasons except for the end of last year’s (I’ll admit it: I’m a Carrie Underwood fan.) However, I did tune in the final 30 minutes of last night’s show (while the DVR was churning away on Lost in the background — more on that in a second.) Sorry, but the show was awful — the singing bad and the staging schmaltzy. That shaved-heard rocker guy singing a Burt Bacharach tune has to be the low point in his career. Unfortunately, it’s also the high point, as it was seen by more people than will ever see him do anything else. (The WaPo’s Lisa de Moraes captures the event accurately.)

On a positive note, however: I must say that, to be in her (what?) 80s or 90s, Dionne Warwick still looks great…and so what if she was, as Randy would say, a little pitchy, she’s still got the stuff. At least she sold me a few downloads last night.

But Prince? What was that all about?

The Alabama contingent of rexblog readers are, no doubt, happy the guy who used to sing at the Flora-Bama won. Actually, I have it on good authority that one person who reads this blog has a friend who knows Taylor — or something like that: Auburn frat-party thing. So, does that make the rexblog three-degrees of separation from the Soul Patrol? Taylor’s fine and, for that matter, Katherine McPhee ain’t bad, but they’re no Carrie Underwood.

As for Lost, I thought the writers did a good job weaving disparate threads together and putting some explanatory touches on some things. They also threw in some intriguing curves. Of course, I’m always a impressed when writers can introduce some Russians in an igloo into a show that takes place on a tropical island. When do the polar bears return?

Come to think of it, I have a third-degree of separation from Lost, as well. One of the lead characters (I’ll skip the specifics) graduated from the high school that on Sunday, a young lady who is one of the lead characters in my life, will also graduate.