Will Web 2.0 becomes class?

No doubt that new Internet projects, covered under the Web 2.0 label and basically ready for the participation of its users, have become drivers of change of philosophy and the greening of the network after the fall from grace of "Empresas.com" failed at the beginning of this decade. In this way, blogs, online newspapers have published little on the net, it evolved into the commercial blog networks and even the media are welcoming the implementation of these communication platforms within their web sites as a value added service to its readers. Furthermore, wikis-some very interesting tools that have not yet woken up to its full potential, have emerged summit projects like Wikipedia, as well as other encyclopedias participatory Knol or Citizendium, and also publishing services and accommodation of visual elements - YouTube or Flickr-are extensively used by the Internet and constantly assaulted by the media as a model for future search of rarities and complaint to the alleged illegal distribution of content. So it seems that after the "Burbuja.com" Internet is beginning to be designed considering the communication and entertainment needs of its users, and 2.0 after the fever begins to be a need for reflection about the importance of the projects, the scope of its authority and commercial farms.

The concept of Web 2.0, one where people individually-generated content that was perfectly illustrated on the cover of Time magazine in which the user became the People of the Year for this publication-in which they were citizens who actually controlled the Information Society, seems to fade slowly. While some projects are beginning to grow and gain some significance, it is confirmed that some ideas are feasible and profitable from a business perspective, away from the initial romanticism that any person has something to say and can share knowledge face to face with the rest of the community in the preparation.

The example of the development models of content within the Web 2.0 as is done in the Wikipedia or Knol, the free developed by Google, may seem contradictory at first, although it is possible to be approaching over time in philosophy. Thus, if the Wikipedia is based primarily on anonymous contribution, users can modify the content never claim authorship of it, and should not expect remuneration for their work; Knol hopes its development precisely the opposite way , allowing the contents to come signed by the author and it earns revenue through advertising embedded within the texts.

Much more premature, Wikipedia and is become one of the on-line encyclopedias most used and trusted by all users, both students at all levels and by the general media when preparing their reports. His influence is such that, in general, their words are placed in the top of the results on Internet search engines and bloggers often like to link your entries as a reference in the texts in its continuous evolution and change. However, the progress of a project of this nature could not escape criticism or polemics or as management and development, so much so that even his co-founder, Larry Sanger decided to launch another name free collaborative Citizendium where they could not edit articles anonymously and in establishing a series of hierarchies depending on the intellectual merit of users.

There are studies that claim, relying on the 1% rule, that Web 2.0 is less democratic than it is considered as the creation and moderation of content is based on input from a very small part of their community, which is establish within an organizational hierarchy within the Wikipedia or even chaotically as on Digg. Taken to extreme, would no longer primarily Knol content, but rather on the continent, since we could find various articles on the same topic, addressed a completely different way and by different authors. Beyond a free to use, we would have a container of information that function through providing expert personal promotion within it and promoted at the expense of others.

The same is what is starting to happen within the Wikipedia. Within the encyclopedia in its German version, its administrators are considering creating a hierarchy of users who approve the amendments and additions to its contents before publication. This contravenes the original performance Wikipedia itself, as so far in the change becomes instantly visible and transparent and can be reversed at any time if the publication suffered sabotage. However, this is a step closer to the philosophical change of Wikipedia as a designated group of users would be those that possessed the power to publish the contents, so completely open participatory culture of the same would be compromised.

Are we glimpsing the end of Web 2.0 as we have known?