-
Web 3.0 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore|
AfD)
As already recently discussed in its
talk page, the topic seems to regard a real, current and notable concept. Please read the discussion in the talk page before saying anything.
Angelo 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- What follows are a list of sources that define the term in various ways that are consistent with the definitions on the former article's talk page. I'll note that the term is used to denote a collection of "things to come" rather then a single entity and thus the definitions are necessarily provisional. 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
web based news journal
http://web2journal.com/read/236036.htm
New york Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/business/12web.html?ex=1320987600&en=254d697964cedc62&ei=5088
Tim Berners Lee
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/23/business/web.php
St Petersberg times
http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=20365
Japenses english language new site
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/culture/20070123TDY18004.htm
Hollywood Reporter
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/features/e3i49998ef2b580e2b5461e3dfb1faedb43?imw=Y
Academic essay
http://lee.webcoder.be/papers/sesa.pdf
Numskll 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep deleted. It's a real phrase and real concept, yes. A well-defined concept? No. Could anything in this article be useful to readers in the future? No. Is having an article about speculation regarding the Web better than normal speculation? No. Could we actually cause harm in creating this article by attempting to define a concept that is not defined? Yes. Once Wikipedia attempts to define it, our definition will become the status quo, and it will ultimately lead to us citing sources that were based on our own definition. ---
RockMFR 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- If the speculation isn't our own we certainly can; for example, we have articles on cars that haven't come out yet but have been speculated on by experts in automotive magazines. Tim Berners-Lee is a significant expert and others have voiced similar opinions. Multiple, nontrivial sources means this is some notable speculation. With NPOV, we can avoid defining it ourselves while specifying which definitions have been made.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete. The concept and roadmap is now defined congruently across several good references . This is what should be included in the article , not speculation or original research. There is no harm in referring to existing definition and descriptions. There is also significant interest in and demand for the article --
Peter Campbell 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- There is harm, as Wikipedia is the de facto source for this type of information. If we were to not have an article, the definition of Web 3.0 might change or transform. Once we define it by selectively choosing sources which match the POV of the article's editors, that definition will strengthen and all other existing definitions will weaken. ---
RockMFR 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I disagree. Many editors would ensure POV is corrected for and all definitions are included. Following your logic, Wikipedia would not have any article on terms classified as emerging or those argued about, such as
Web 2.0 or
Service-oriented architecture --
Peter Campbell 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete Seven sources, come on. —
MichaelLinnear 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment, it seems to pretty definitively be tied to the
Semantic Web; some of the sources are hazy, but none of them dispute that. change to a redirect, perhaps? Or just a stubby disambig with links to the specific concepts?
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- My issue there is that as I understand it the semantic web is one of the technologies that will comprise Web 3.0, the terms are not synomynous. The solution would be to have a section in the semantic web article that describes this context - which seems backwards.
Numskll 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete. With sources like that, we should have an article. It may end up being too short for it's own article, but that's not our concern. -
Amarkov
moo! 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- undelete It may possibly be on the short side now, but it can be expected to increase. It is already N enough to include.
DGG 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete. If there isn't enough to say, we can always merge it to
Web 2.0, but the current status (a useless self-reference at a point where we could at least have a useful redirect) is not good.
Kusma
(討論) 06:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete. As somebody in the industry, I hate buzz-o-licious terms like "Web 3.0". And like "Web 2.0" people are using it to mean a couple of different things. But they aren't using it to mean anything at all, and I regret to say that people are using it. I think Night Gyr's stubby disambiguation page is all we need for now.
William Pietri 08:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete: This is me, with apologies, parsing out
RockMFR's objections.
- It's a real phrase and real concept, yes. A well-defined concept? No. It is a braodly defined concept but relatively well articulated. Just because some term is conflicted or slippery doesn't make it non-notable or unencyclopedic.
- Could anything in this article be useful to readers in the future? No. This, to me, is ridiculous on its face. An NPOV article on the topic certianly could be useful to those who stumbled across the term. In point of fact I'm advocating for its inclusion primarily because I directed someone to wikipedia to find out more about the term and found it locked down. I found its omission and wiki-forboden disapointing to say the least. Is no information really better then provisional informartion.
- Is having an article about speculation regarding the Web better than normal speculation? No. Except this speculation isn't pure specualtion as it is embedded in on-going and real world projects that surround building the web out for the future. We're not talkng flying cars here.
- Could we actually cause harm in creating this article by attempting to define a concept that is not defined? Yes. Once Wikipedia attempts to define it, our definition will become the status quo, and it will ultimately lead to us citing sources that were based on our own definition. Isn't that simply [somewhat self important] speculation? You don't want to allow us to publish a discussion of the term because of the possible harm it might cause to the Web? I'm not sure where to go with that other than to note that if the article is NPOV and accurate any definition we float will be necessarily accurate, thus obviating your f wikipedia dominating the term.
Numskll 12:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- undelete - the argument that we shouldn't have an article is so completely specious that taken to its logical conclusion, we shouldn't have an article on _anything_ because wikipedia might be used as a source and cite sources that used it. --
Random832(
t
c) 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- keep deleted article would still fail
WP:NEO, and still be basically be a laundry list of all the times people have taken Web 2.0 and added one to it.
Artw 15:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I've just read
WP:NEO. The qualifiers offered by the policy seem to allow the the use of Web 3.0 by exception. The actual limiting policies then are
WP:NOR and whatever the wiki code for the verifiable policy is. The article clearly passes on those accounts. I wonder if you're not getting caught up in the negative conotations of web x.x and buzz words in general?
Numskll 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- undelete TBL and NYT as cites. The notion that WP can define a term in an industry with rigorous process of developing a standard is precious.
Edivorce 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The TBL quote is, frankly, rather selective quoting and utterly disengenuous. The man doesn't even like the term Web 2.0.
Artw 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I missed the WP that said a given auther had to like the term. Seriously, even if he used it with distain (which is indeed obvious from the source), he used it with the expectation that everyone would know what he was talking about.
Numskll 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete a buzzword, but a notable buzzword. Seems like this could be turned into a decent enough article, given the sources above especially.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete. Meets verifiability standards.
Ab
e
g92
contribs 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)!
reply
- Undelete. If it's something feel a need to look up, Wikipedia should contain an article on it - even if all it does is explain the ambiguities and problems associated with the phrase. I fail to understand where this protectionism came from.
Nossac 20:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep deleted: When it exists as a stable concept, then it can be defined in Wiktionary. When it exists as a stable thing, it can be described in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a proper home for lexical matters, and shifting concepts are linguistic counters rather than realities, and Wikipedia is not a proper home for vague musings about what might be. Even describing the contexts in which the term is employed is properly lexical and not encyclopedic. The fact that this is the contemporary
Land of Cockagne is interesting, but it is sufficient to note, in the article on WWW2, that people are using the term "3" to describe what might one day be. There is no need for a separate article of speculation.
Geogre 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- There is a speculative article on
World War III, so being a stable concept is not a valid criterion for exclusion. A subject doesn't need to be locked down in concrete before a Wikipedia article can exist - there is still debate about what
Web 2.0 is. Web 3.0 exists as a term. The important article criteria are that
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are followed, viz
WP:Neutral point of view,
WP:Verifiability,
WP:No Original Research,
WP:What Wikipedia is not. The article can comply with all these. The references will address the
WP:NEO concern about the Web 3.0 neologism being verifiable --
Peter Campbell 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Actually, the applicable policy is the deletion guideline. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Your business is lexical, not encyclopedic, until there is more than a linguistic phenomenon to report. The article on
Cloud Cuckoo Land should not say what it means but what it is. This is important. Concepts are not all that is needed for an encyclopedia: activity within culture and the world is what is needed. If there are disparate referents for the sign, you're in dictionary world.
Geogre 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The term applies to a set of concepts that might be thought of as the specific scope and nature of near term innovation and augmentation of the web. There are a number of features, identifed in the various sources, that make Web 3.0 a relatively coherent concept. It is not a simply a synonym for whatever comes after web 2.0. This, in my view, makes it fair game for wikipedia. Plus, I'm not certian "not in my backyard" is a productive posture for the enterprise before us.
Numskll 15:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I've just reread the deletion policy and other then wikipedia is not a dictionary or a crystal ball( both of which are in my view inapplicable for reasons given here) there deosn't seem to be a criteria that fits. Are those your basis for excluding this topic?
Numskll 15:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete We know the concept exists. We know the term exists. We know the term is used for the concept. The concept will change, but that doesnt prevent an article. WP manages to keep up with change quite well, especially on this sort of topic. Trying not to have the article now, when we know there will be one in a few weeks or months is irrational--any reasonable person would expect to find an article on this here.
DGG 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I think your distinction of term vs. concept is an important one and perhaps part of the hang up folks are having with the article.
Numskll 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete per the commenters above, the concept is notable.
Yamaguchi先生 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rob Frieden
academic paper Internet 3.0: Identifying Problems and Solutions to the Network Neutrality Debate Feb 2007 (Internet rather than Web, and I'm having no joy opening the pdf, but I thought I'd throw it in)
Wwwhatsup 09:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete I read most of the arguments above and it seems logical to undelete the article. Although it might not have a definite definition, it satisfies WP:NEO in that it's mentioned in various reputable sources. Only a definition on Wiktionary is too shallow for the entire subject.
Jumping cheese
Cont
@ct 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete. It's a notable concept, with plenty of external source material, and deserves its own page. --
Careax 17:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete. It's hard to see many 'Web technologies' as a holistic system, and even harder to define it and give it versioning numbers. But people are using the term and that by itself should justify a Wikipedia entry. At least we would then have an informative page where it says "Web 3.0 is hard to define because people are referring to the integration of various web-related technologies, however ....".
-hthth 02:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete I came on Wikipedia to read about Web 3.0 tonight. Was surprised to find it locked. Would favor unlocking and at least describing why it's hard to define, etc.
InvictaHOG 03:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
![[4]](http://pinstand.com/bb/betterbadges1.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://pinstand.com/bb/betterbadges3.jpg){kind=link}