Web 2.0，指的是一个利用Web的平台，由用户主导而生成的内容互联网产品模式，为了区别传统由网站雇员主导生成的内容而定义为web2.0。接下来小编为大家整理网站应如何创建。希望对你有帮助哦!

The phrase Web 2.0 was created by O'Reilly Media to refer to a supposed second generation of network-centric services available on the internet that let people collaborate and share information online in a new way - such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools and folksonomies. O'Reilly Media, in collaboration with MediaLive International, used the phrase as a title for a series of conferences and since then it has become a popular, if ill-defined and often criticized, buzzword amongst the technical and marketing communities.

Introduction

With its allusion to the version numbers that commonly designate software upgrades, the phrase "Web 2.0" trendily hints at an improved form of the World Wide Web, and the term has appeared in occasional use for several years. The more explicit synonym "Participatory Web", emphasizing tools and platforms that enable the user to tag, blog, comment, modify, augment, select from, rank, and generally talk back to the contributions of other users and the general world community has increasingly seen use as an alternative phrase. Some commentators regard reputation-based public wikis, like Wikipedia, as pioneering examples of Web 2.0/Participatory Web technology.

O'Reilly Media and MediaLive International popularized the term Web 2.0 for a conference they hosted after Dale Dougherty mentioned it during a brainstorming session. Dougherty suggested that the Web was in a renaissance, with changing rules and evolving business models. The participants assembled examples — "DoubleClick was Web 1.0; Google AdSense is Web 2.0. Ofoto is Web 1.0; Flickr is Web 2.0" — rather than definitions. Dougherty recruited John Battelle for a business perspective, and it became the first Web 2.0 Conference in October 2004. A second annual conference was held in October 2005.

In their first conference opening talk, O'Reilly and Battelle summarized key principles they believe characterize Web 2.0 applications: the Web as platform; data as the driving force; network effects created by an architecture of participation; innovation in assembly of systems and sites composed by pulling together features from distributed, independent developers (a kind of "open source" development); lightweight business models enabled by content and service syndication; the end of the software adoption cycle ("the perpetual beta"); software above the level of a single device, leveraging the power of The Long Tail.

Earlier users of the phrase "Web 2.0" employed it as a synonym for "semantic web", and indeed, the two concepts complement each other. The combination of social networking systems such as FOAF and XFN with the development of tag-based folksonomies and delivered through blogs and wikis creates a natural basis for a semantic environment. Although the technologies and services that comprise Web 2.0 are less powerful than an internet in which the machines can understand and extract meaning, as proponents of the Semantic Web envision, Web 2.0 represents a step in its direction.

As used by its proponents, the phrase refers to one or more of the following:

The transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality, thus becoming computing platforms serving web applications to end users

A social phenomenon referring to an approach to creating and distributing Web content itself, characterized by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use, and "the market as a conversation"

A more organized and categorized content, with a far more developed deeplinking web architecture

A shift in economic value of the web, possibly surpassing that of the dot com boom of the late 1990s

A marketing term to differentiate new web businesses from those of the dot com boom, which due to the bust now seem discredited

The resurgence of excitement around the possibilities of innovative web applications and services that gained a lot of momentum around mid 2005

Many find it easiest to define Web 2.0 by associating it with companies or products that embody its principles and Tim O'Reilly gave examples in his description of his four plus one levels in the hierarchy of Web 2.0-ness:

Level 3 applications, the most Wev 2.0, which could only exist on the internet, deriving their power from the human connections and network effects it makes possible and growing in effectiveness the more people use them. His examples were EBay, craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype, Dodgeball, Adsense for Content, housingmaps.com and Amazon.

Level 2 applications, which can be offline but gain unique advantages from being online. His example was Flickr, benefiting from its shared photo database and community-generated tag database.

Level 1 applications are also available offline but gain features online. His examples were Writely, gaining group editing capability online and iTunes because of the music store portion.

Level 0 applications would work as well offline. His examples were MapQuest, Yahoo! Local, and Google Maps. Mapping applications using contributions from users to advantage can be level 2.

non-internet applications like email, IM clients and the telephone.

Examples other than those cited by O'Reilly include digg, Shoutwire, last.fm, and Technorati.

Commentators see many recently-developed concepts and technologies as contributing to Web 2.0, including weblogs, linklogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds and other forms of many to many publishing; social software, web APIs, web standards, online web services, and others.

Proponents of the Web 2.0 concept say that it differs from early web development (retrospectively labeled Web 1.0) in that it moves away from static websites, the use of search engines, and surfing from one website to the next, towards a more dynamic and interactive World Wide Web. Others argue that the original and fundamental concepts of the WWW are not actually being superseded. Skeptics argue that the term is little more than a buzzword, or that it means whatever its proponents want it to mean in order to convince their customers, investors and the media that they are creating something fundamentally new, rather than continuing to develop and use well-established technologies.

The retrospectively-labeled "Web 1.0" often consisted of static HTML pages, rarely (if ever) updated. They depended solely on HTML, which a new Internet user could learn fairly easily. The success of the dot-com era depended on a more dynamic Web (sometimes labeled Web 1.5) where content management systems served dynamic HTML web pages created on the fly from a content database that could more easily be changed. In both senses, so-called eyeballing was considered intrinsic to the Web experience, thus making page hits and visual aesthetics important factors.

Proponents of the Web 2.0 approach believe that Web usage has started increasingly moving towards interaction and towards rudimentary social networks, which can serve content that exploits network effects with or without creating a visual, interactive web page. In one view, Web 2.0 sites act more as points of presence, or user-dependent web portals, than as traditional websites. They have become so advanced new internet users cannot create these websites, they are only users of web services, done by specialist professional experts.

Access to consumer-generated content facilitated by Web 2.0 brings the web closer to Tim Berners-Lee's original concept of the web as a democratic, personal, and DIY medium of communication.

Web 2.0是一个由O'Reilly Media创造的术语，它的应用可以让人了解目前万维网正在进行的一种改变——从一系列网站到一个成熟的为最终用户提供网络应用的服务平台。这种概念的支持者期望Web 2.0服务将在很多用途上最终取代桌面计算机应用。Web 2.0并不是一个技术标准，不过它包含了技术架构及应用软件。它的特点是鼓励作为资讯最终利用者透过分享，使到可供分享的资源变得更丰盛;相反的，过去的各种网上分享方式则显得支离破碎。

概览

Web(在这里，指代“Web 1.0”)最早的概念包括不常更新(甚至不更新)的静态HTML页面。而.com时代的成功则是依靠一个更加动态的Web(指代“Web 1.5”)，其中CMS(内容管理系统)可以从不断变化的内容数据库中即时生成动态HTML页面。从这两种意义上来说，所谓的眼球效应则被认为是固有的Web感受，也因此页面点击率和外观成为了重要因素。

Web 2.0的支持者认为Web的使用正日渐以交互性和未来的社会性网络为导向，所提供的服务内容，通过或不通过创建一个可视的、交互的网页来充分挖掘网络效应。某种观点认为，和传统网站相比，Web 2.0的网站更多表现为Point of presence或者是依赖用户的门户网站。

另一方面，其实早在1999年，著名的管理学者彼得·杜拉克 (Peter F. Drucker)就曾指出当时的资讯科技发展走错了方向，因为真正推动社会进步的，是"Information Technology"里的"Information"，而不是"Technology"。若然单单着重技术层面而忽略了资讯的话，就只是一具空的躯壳，不能使社会增值。而Web 2.0很明显是透过参与者的互动：不论是提供内容、为内容索引或评分，都能够使他们所使用的平台增值。透过参与者的互动，好的产品或资讯本著它的口碑，从一小撮使用者扩展到一大班人，一但超过了临界质量，就会“像病毒一样广泛流传”(葛拉威尔，2002)。

该词的来源

有不少人以为"Web 2.0"是一个技术的标准，其实这是个美丽的误会，因为Web 2.0只是一个用来阐述技术转变的术语。这个术语是由O'Reilly Media的Dale Dougherty 和 MediaLive 的 Craig Cline 在共同合作的脑力激荡(brain storming)会议上提出来的。Dougherty提出了Web目前正处于复兴时期，有着不断改变的规则和不断演化的商业模式。而Dougherty则是举例说明——“DoubleClick是Web 1.0，Google AdSense 则是Web 2.0。 Ofoto是Web 1.0;Flickr 则是Web 2.0”，而不是给出确切的定义，和补充一个商业前景，同时O'Reilly Media、Battelle和MediaLive 在2004年10月启动了第一个Web 2.0大会。第二次的年会已在2005年10月举办。

在他们的会议开场白上，O'Reilly和Battelle总结了他们认为的表现了Web 2.0应用特色的一些关键原则：

将Web作为平台;

驾驭群体智慧

资料将变成未来的“Intel Inside”;

软件不断发行与升级的循环将会终结(“永久的Beta版”)

轻量型程序设计模型;

通过内容和服务的联合使轻量的业务模型可行;

软件执行将跨越单一设备

丰富的使用者体验

分享和参与的架构 所驱动的网络效应;

通过带动分散的、独立的开发者把各个系统和网站组合形成大汇集的改革;

拉动长尾的能力;

快速的反应与功能新增

双向的互动

这种软件发布中的版本号的使用从某一方面也暗示了整个Web已经被看作是一种有着重大增值意义的新产品，而且正在被重新编写和发布。

同语义网的比较

对于Web 2.0这个词的一个较早的出现是作为语义网的同义词。这两个概念有点相似而且是互补的。结合了基于标签的Folksonomy(分众分类法)的社会性网络系统如FOAF和XFN，以及通过Blog和Wiki进行发表，已经创建了一个语义环境的天然基础。

技术

Web 2.0技术基础比较复杂而且还在演化中，但可以肯定的是包括服务器端软件、内容联合组织、消息协议、基于标准的浏览器和各种不同的客户端应用程序。(一般会避免使用非标准浏览器的一些增强功能和插件)这些不同但是互补的方法提供了Web2.0信息存储、创建和分发的能力，这些能力远远超出了先前人们对网站的期望。

如果一个网站使用了以下一些技术作为特色的话，就说他是利用了Web 2.0技术：

技术方面：

CSS, 语义化有效的XHTML标记，和Microformats

不突出的丰富应用技术(例如Ajax)

数据的联合，RSS/ATOM

RSS/ATOM数据的聚合

规则且有意义的URL

支持对网志发帖子

REST 或者是XML Web服务API

某些社会性网络方面

通用概念：

网站不能是封闭的——它必须可以很方便地被其他系统获取或写入数据。

用户应该在网站上拥有他们自己的数据。

完全地基于Web —— 大多数成功的Web 2.0网站可以几乎完全通过浏览器来使用

内容联合组织

Web 2.0的首要的也是最重要的发展，包括了使用标准化协议的网站内容的联合，这可以让最终用户在其他环境中使用网站的数据，包括另一个网站、浏览器插件、或者一个单独的桌面应用程序。这些联合协议包括RSS，资源描述框架(RDF)，和Atom，这些都是基于XML的。特别的协议如FOAF和XFN(XHTML朋友网络)——这两者都是为了社会性网络开发的——扩展了网站的功能或者可让最终用户不集中于网站就可以进行交互。参见microformats，以查询更多的专门数据格式。

由于发展太快，很多这些协议都是事实上的标准而不是正式的标准。

Web服务

双向的消息协议是Web 2.0架构的关键元素之一。两个主要的类型是RESTful和SOAP方法。REST(Representational State Transfer)表示了一种Web服务 客户端传送所有的事务的状态。SOAP(Simple Object Access Protocal)和类似的轻量方法都依赖服务器来保存状态信息。两种情况下，服务是通过一个API调用的。这个API常常是根据网站的特殊需求定义的，但是标准的Web服务API(例如，给Blog发帖)的API依然被广泛使用。一般来说Web服务的通用语言是XML，但并不一定，还存在大量不同的其他语言，如JSON，YAML等。

最近，出现了一个被称之为Ajax的混合形式，用来增强基于浏览器的Web应用的用户体验。这可以用于一些特别的形式(如Google Maps、UrMap)或是一些开放的形式，可以直接利用Web服务API、数据联合，甚至是绘画。

宽泛得说，联合是一种Web服务的形式，但是Web服务形式的使用却不是很常见的。

参见 WSDL(Web服务描述语言)和Web服务规范表。

服务器软件

Web 2.0 的功能是在已有的Web服务器架构上建立的，但是更加强调后台软件。数据联合不仅仅是名称上和内容管理发布方法不同，而且Web服务要求更加强壮的数据库和工作流的支持，并且变得与传统的企业内部网的应用服务器功能更加相似。供应商不管是用一个通用服务器方法，可以把所有需要的功能都集中到一个服务器平台上，或者是一个Web服务器插件的方法，可以使用增强了API接口的标准发布工具和其他工具。不管选择的是哪种途径，Web 2.0的进化不会为这些选择做出重大改变。

社会影响

Web 2.0中出现的数据联合和消息传送能力，提出了潜在的一种可能性——在完全不同的在线社区之间创建一个更加紧密的社会构造。同时还出现了一些新的术语来集合性地代表这些共同的社团，包括blogshpere：网志的世界，syndisphere：内容联合发布，以及 wikisphere，然而其他的观察者认为这些措辞和内在的含义太空泛了。

商业影响

可能的由Web 2.0带来的指数级增长的业务的原因，可归结为以人为本的消费和以计算机为本的消费的区别。

对于价值的鉴定和消费的过程中无需不同人为参与，由于Web 2.0的出现，也是完全可能的事情了。各个组织会不断使用诸如RSS/Atom/RDF之类的联合格式来联合他们的价值提案。除了价值的联合外，Web服务终点发布将简化联合的价值的消费过程。

事实上，至今没有人能给Web2.0下一个明确的定义。每个人眼中的Web2.0都有不同的表述。技术研究者眼中的Web2.0是SNS、BLOG等社会性软件的兴起; 博客们则认为Web2.0是人与人之间更为便捷的互动; 在风险投资商眼中，Web2.0又代表了新的商业机会和行业游戏规则。

而从行销者的角度来看，Web2.0则至少意味著三个方面的内容： 一种创新的媒介形式、一个集中的社群环境，以及一种全新行销理念。

目前逐渐盛行的BLOG行销被认为是Web2.0行销的典型形式之一。

早期的网络行销不外乎是透过电子邮件发送、弹出式视窗、横幅式广告等几种手法。 最常见的例子就是入口网站将其网页上的广告空间待价而沽，等到广告商上门之后，入口网站再依点选率或是摆放时间的长短来收取费用。 这样的缺点是，广告商永远无法知道你所摆放的广告是不是真的接触到你的目标客户，还是只是在茫茫的网海中找寻一两个真正有需求的消费者。 就像是Tim O'Reilly所说的一样，如果Web 1.0的代表者是Netscape，那Web 2.0的代表就是Google。 Google一改以往广告商寻找消费者的思考模式，而改以消费者自行查询广告的思维模式来经营。 Google将首页保持干净，但在关键字搜寻的时候提供你想要查找资讯的相关广告，不但确保每一个点选进网站的浏漤者都是对该资讯有兴趣的潜在消费者，也一并解决了消费者对广告视窗扰人的困扰。 而前一阵子Google推出的Google Page也有异曲同工之妙，利用免费提供部落格服务的形式，从中蒐集更多消费者的习性，其中的用意就是要为消费者量身订做一个个人化的Google。