The semantics web?

The semantics web? I know I’ve been asking this question for over six year (I have proof below): What does one call this stuff we do?

I’ll agree with one thing. I’m not a consumer generating content. (But I’ll defer to a long-ago post from Doc Searls to explain why.)

Mary Hodder also doesn’t like the word “consumer” as in consumer-generated content. She prefers “user” as in user-generated content.

Robert Scoble hates being called a “user” and would rather be a participant, as in, I presume, “participatory media.”

Kevin Marks digs into the Latin and French origin of the word “amateur” and says it’s no slight to call it amateur (as in “lovingly created”) media.

Dave Winer also thinks amateur is a good word, and has been saying so for a long time.

How do I know I’ve been wondering what to call this for over six years? Well, on September 23, 1999, I registered the URL “” — So, I’d be happy if we’d all just agree on that one.

Others terms: Citizens media (but to me, that sounds like CB radio – breaker, breaker). I pushed the term “folk media” once, but I think it was Jeff Jarvis who suggested that sounded like something performed by Peter, Paul & Mary.

2 thoughts on “The semantics web?

  1. The struggle with pigeonholing everyone into one category may be part of the problem. Not everyone is doing the same thing with the software that delivers their content. Some, who generate tons of comments, are more conversational. Others, who don’t attract comments, may be more like traditional broadcast/print media. Some blogs are indeed converging points in birds-of-a-feather type communities. Each use or end product may need its own descriptor/moniker. I am just not sure that a one-size-fits-all label works.

Comments are closed.