> The whole Web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 has never been a good fit anyway and used quite arbitrarily The actual problem is that there's a fundamental distinction betwe

> The whole Web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 has never been a good fit anyway and used quite arbitrarily The actual problem is that there's a fundamental distinction between the "2.0" -and "1.0"- tag and the "3.0" tag. "Web 2.0" was a term coined to describe something which had already occurred, at least to a substantial extent. This is made obvious by the fact that it was coined in conjunction with "Web 1.0". It was defined on some -more or less defined- characteristics that were there already and were used to point out a change that had already happened. It was "Ok, this has happened; let's call it 2.0 (and, for contrast, let's call 1.0 what existed previously)". People generally agreed on the name and that was it. "Web 3.0" was never anything like that. It has always been co-opted to promote someone's ideas/hopes/vision/technologies. It is always "Ok, I/we want to go in that direction; I/we will call that "3.0" and hope the world shares my view and allows me to use that name for my vision". As a fairly old example: > The Semantic Web (sometimes known as Web 3.0) ... [0] But, of course, being something which isn't there just yet, a lot of groups want to own the term for their thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web