Jason McCabe Calacanis has come up with the “official” definition of Web 3.0:
Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform.
…and a very lame definition that is. I’m sorry.
Inherent in the definition of a major milestone or “version” (such as 1.x, 2.x, and 3.x) is something big, a big change, a big impact…
Web 2.0 was about openness, and user content and services (anyone’s content and services), and the collective social influence and effects. But Web 3.0, per Jason, is about exclusion: about high-quality content, by gifted individuals.
Who cares if the content is high-quality? or was created by gifted individuals? That is not the point. The Web is and will continue to be about enabling people, gifted or not, to create content, crappy or not, and share such content, and in the future, about the meaning of content and the interconnections between them (intelligence and semantic), and as it continues to evolve, about non-people (other sources of information) being part of this highly-social Web of today.
What blows my mind is that Jason’s definition is so relative: my crappy content might be high-quality to others; and that is the beauty of the Web.
Jason’s definition is a step back, it is an excluding path, and it just won’t happen that way. So in short, I totally disagree with Jason.
Since we are in this topic, I’ll say again what I said before on The Web x.0, past, present and future. But today I will add that “information ubiquity”, specifically delivered via the mobile handset, and physical-to-virtual world connections that extend to the Web, is going to be a big part of the next Web.
Update: I just noticed the Tim O’Reilly had written about this exact same thing, see Today’s Web 3.0 Nonsense Blogstorm.