Wikipedia is a great, but I was a bit confused as to why it was being cited as a main example of Web2.0 in Xeni Jardin’s Wired article “Web 2.0 Cracks Start to Show“.
I know there still isn’t really a conclusive description of what Web2.0 actually is, but in my mind it exists at a computer-to-computer level. Getting your script or application to read/write to another online application, etc.
Which isn’t really what Wikipedia is about (well, I know you can get an XML dump of the repository, but that’s hardly Web2.0). It’s certainly not the key focus of what Web2.0 is.
Maybe a definition of Web 2.0 could be derived from what is and isn’t Web2.0?
Getting your script or application to read/write to another online application, etc.
I don’t quite understand this. I see Web2.0 (ug) as a social application, like Flickr, Upcoming, Del.icio.us where it builds a community who comment, contribute and tag content. Also make use of the latest technologies/standards to make the website act more like an application (asynchronous data sending etc). All mashed together with the ability to export that data using an XML format. So, an extensible social-based application-style website.
Though, I agree with your comment. I don’t see Wikipedia as a “Web2.0”, although it is social-based as in everyone contributes, it doesn’t have the feel/community of the sites I cited above.