<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I&#039;m ready for Web 2.0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jasonkristufek.com/2008/04/22/im-ready-for-web-20/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jasonkristufek.com/2008/04/22/im-ready-for-web-20/</link>
	<description>Product Manager, Entrepreneurship, Content Strategy, Journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:34:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nez</title>
		<link>http://jasonkristufek.com/2008/04/22/im-ready-for-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>Nez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:29:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wemediaguru.wordpress.com/?p=61#comment-53</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not into buzzwords because they lose meaning after the billionth time some yahoo says they&#039;re all about Web 2.0 and then makes every design shiny and round but continues to approach the medium from the old one-way &quot;mass comm&quot; perspective.
That said, I remember thinking way back in &#039;95 or so (the year every company advertising on the Super Bowl announced their Web address) that the net had been co-opted by corporate entities as &quot;TV-part two.&quot; Yet even then, we were starting to e-mail and form social groups based on interest rather than locality.
My (admittedly long-winded) point is that while the term &quot;Web 2.0&quot; might have overstayed its welcome, the message of what Web 2.0 represents (interactivity, conversations, connectivity, selectivity) has yet to sink in.
It has always been &quot;just the Web:&quot; Sometimes it&#039;s a TV. Sometimes it&#039;s a telephone. Sometimes it&#039;s a book. One size does not fit all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not into buzzwords because they lose meaning after the billionth time some yahoo says they&#8217;re all about Web 2.0 and then makes every design shiny and round but continues to approach the medium from the old one-way &#8220;mass comm&#8221; perspective.<br />
That said, I remember thinking way back in &#8217;95 or so (the year every company advertising on the Super Bowl announced their Web address) that the net had been co-opted by corporate entities as &#8220;TV-part two.&#8221; Yet even then, we were starting to e-mail and form social groups based on interest rather than locality.<br />
My (admittedly long-winded) point is that while the term &#8220;Web 2.0&#8243; might have overstayed its welcome, the message of what Web 2.0 represents (interactivity, conversations, connectivity, selectivity) has yet to sink in.<br />
It has always been &#8220;just the Web:&#8221; Sometimes it&#8217;s a TV. Sometimes it&#8217;s a telephone. Sometimes it&#8217;s a book. One size does not fit all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

