I'm genuinely baffled by a few things — one, the existence of the liger, and second, the misconceptions concerning Web 2.0. So many people associate the terminology with gradients, CSS (had to laugh at this one), Ajax, and standards. The fact is, there's no definition, but it doesn't have to involve any of the others. Web 1.0 was the first stage of online development, structuring the web and showing it to the people. In those days, the internet was exclusive, some sort of newfangled invention that very few people truly understood. Was it an actual web? Could you cure HIV/AIDS with it? Would it automatically get you a college degree? Several years later, people are understanding the internet more — take the proliferation of instant messaging and e-mailing, bookmarking and uploading, sharing and loving and living the web — which brings me to my point (finally):

Web 2.0 is the "easy button"

Usability. Web 2.0 is about usability — bringing the internet to the common man. It's not about having the prettiest design, it's about having the most usable one. Gradients or not, the site that is the most easily used is going to be more popular than one that isn't. Granted, this delves into design — an ugly site isn't going to attract much attention. But I'm hoping this explains why YouTube, Flickr, etc. are termed what they are — because anyone can use them; they fall into the category of "THINGS YOU CAN DO ON THE INTARWEBZ". For example, in Band the other day, my friends were talking about a South Park episode — I don't have satellite, and haven't had it for at least a few years now — but YouTube came up in the conversation, a way of bringing the episodes to me instead of the other way around.

Web 2.0 is a transition, not an invention

No one "thought up" Web 2.0. No one sat down at a table and outlined what would become the internet's most successful marketing campaign. No one had an epiphany one day, in the rain, and rushed in to tell the rest of the world. The fact is that it happened, on its own. Web 2.0 is primarily a transition because, as humans, we always attempt to facilitate certain processes. The first inventions are always clunky — they get simpler and simpler until soon, the most complicated processes can be carried out with the touch of a button — the "easy button", if you see where I'm going with this. It's not that we're becoming primitive; on the contrary, we're becoming more advanced but the downside is the lack of learning. We, as humans, are always going to be ignorant, brutish, boorish, and disgusting to other creatures. For god's sake, we invented mulch — the single most disgusting smell on the planet. But the more we invent and bring those inventions to everyone else, the less they will have to know about the actual process to perform the task. Things become too easy. There's no work, no benefit. I'm not exactly fond of this sort of transformation in our society, but it's inevitable. Early men had to learn how to talk; now, people like Lindsay Lohan are trying to learn how to sing.

The future (new)

In fact, I think we're closer to approaching Web 3.0 — the time when anyone regulate the flow of information on the internet — rather than Web 2.0. And after that, when people can participate in the building of applications, and etc (and thanks for this point, Aaron), maybe civilization won't nosedive. Maybe this is the reality we can create — one web app at a time! (Edit: I've been term-jacked :()

In short...

Web 2.0 is a term applied to sites that make the internet less exclusive. We don't have neighborhood computer geeks anymore. Computers aren't a luxury item; they're a way of life. And if gradients ever come into the issue again, I will HULKSMASH™ Ann Coulter, and eventually MTV (My Super Sweet 16? KILL ME. KILL ME NOW.) for good measure.