If you haven’t been living in an E-cave for the last 10 years, you might know the latest buzzword going all about: Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is what sites suck as Flickr and Remember the Milk define themselves ask. But there’s a bit of a vague problem.

No, really, that’s the problem. It’s too Vague.

According to the Wikipedia, Tim O’Reilly defines Web 2.0 as “the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.” What in hell does that mean? Move to the internet as a platform? Wasn’t that done around, oh….1996?!

While the Wikipedia article lays down some good characteristics about what would make a website a “Web 2.0″ site, there still ceases to be a concrete definition of what defines Web 2.0. Most of the characteristics, such as “Users owning the data on the site and exercising control over that data.” and “Network as platform” — delivering (and allowing users to use) applications entirely through a browser,” are obviously things that existed long before Web 2.0.

It’s also argued that “Web 1.0″ is when the web was used for information, and 2.0 is more participatory. Uhh, anyone know what Usenet is? IRC? BBSes? All were there long before Flickr, Stickr, or any other Websitr was a twinkle in a programmer’s eyeball. While I will consent that the web was used for info quite a bit back then (But by info, I mean the latest porno pictures,) but there was still a participation involved.

There is indeed an exponential increase in social participation, but it’s nothing really to hang flags saying “Web 2.0 Forever!”

That being said, what do you think Web 2.5 will bring, or 3.0, or 4.0, hell, 10.0?
When the hell will that show up? What will it bring? Oy, this is confusing. On to something easier, like…well..not Web 2.0