ReadWriteWeb

WTF? Origins of Five Popular Web 2.0 Terms

Written by Marshall Kirkpatrick / January 8, 2009 5:45 PM / 44 Comments

web20upside.jpgWeb 2.0 is pretty cool - so cool in fact that it's got its own buzzwords and lingo that not everybody knows. Everybody has a lot to gain from participation in this new cultural phenomenon, though, so there's no reason why everyone shouldn't know the background on the lingo. We did a little research just to cover our own bases! We thought we'd share it with you.

Think you know where catchwords like FTW and Fail! came from? Think you know who came up with the phrase Web 2.0? Do you know what the first Rickrolled link claimed to be? We did some hunting around to find out - below are our best ideas for the history of these and other popular terms around the web these days.

Update: Note that a number of commenters have said we got some of these things wrong, or that they aren't really "web 2.0" terms. The conversation in comments here is probably at least as informative as the post itself (though not always very nice!), so check it out too.

FTW

FTW is most commonly understood as standing for "For the Win!" The Urban Dictionary says it entered popular culture via the TV show Hollywood Squares. The show featured two contestants playing a trivia based tic-tac-toe game where the squares had celebrities siting in them who "helped" answer the questions.

The final question to complete the tic-tac-toe was asked "for the win..." The show ran from 1966 through 1981 but there were several attempts to revive it.

Fail!

failblogphoto.jpgNow a one word sentence primarily used to mock, sometimes with a touch of sympathy, the prominent use of the word "Fail" is said to derive from 1998 arcade game Blazing Star. According to an article from this Fall in Slate, "its staying power comes from its wonderfully terrible Japanese-to-English translations. If you beat a level, the screen flashes with the words: 'You beat it! Your skill is great!' If you lose, you are mocked: 'You fail it! Your skill is not enough! See you next time! Bye bye!'"

See also the relatively new FailBlog.org, a daily collection of unintentionally funny images and videos with very simple captions.

Right: The cycles of history have a cruel sense of humor.

Rickroll

duckrolled.jpgFrom the consistently obscene fringe message board 4chan to the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade! Who would have ever thought a joke like this would go so far?

According to the Wikipedia entry on the phenomenon, the practice of telling someone you're linking to one thing and then linking instead to the Rick Astley video Never Going to Give You Up was originally based on a practice known as Duckrolling. The link would claim to be to a news item or some other thing but would instead take visitors to a web page containing a photoshopped picture of a duck on wheels. Hey look, it's a duck...with wheels.

The first Rickroll ever, Wikipedia dutifully reports, was a May 2007 link on 4chan that claimed to be to a mirror copy of the original trailer for the game Grand Theft Auto IV, which was otherwise unavailable.

4chan is also believed to be the origin of Lolcats.

Eating Our Own Dogfood

You often hear about technology companies "eating their own dogfood," which means using their own software to get work done. According to the book Inside Out: Microsoft in Our Own Words, the phrase came from Microsoft's Paul Maritz. Maritz had seen an Alpo dog food commercial where actor Lorne Greene told viewers that Alpo was so good he...fed it to his own dogs! Neither Greene nor Maritz apparently ate dogfood themselves, but Maritz did use the phrase in an email calling for Microsoft workers to use their own products more.

Dorky executives have felt like a little "edgy" using the phrase ever since.

Web 2.0

Many people think that Tim O'Reilly, book publisher and founder of the Web 2.0 Conference, coined the term Web 2.0. Last month O'Reilly mentioned in a PBS Science radio interview, though, that some one who worked for him actually came up with the phrase to articulate some concepts the O'Reilly himself had been discussing.

DaleDougherty.jpgWe did a little hunting around and got to what's apparently the truth. More than 3 years ago Tim wrote an article titled What is Web 2.0:
Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
where he says that it was O'Reilly VP Dale Dougherty who came up with the moniker in early 2004. (Photo of Dougherty, left, by David A. Mellis) How many of you got that trivia question right? At the time Dougherty was the Editor and Publisher of O'Reilly's Make magazine, so he was no stranger to invention.


So there you go. Now you don't have to be a wall flower at parties any more, for fear of not knowing the history of these five terms. Or are the conclusions we've drawn here incorrect? If you've got reason to believe so...speak up now!


Comments

Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts

  1. WTF...you get paid to have so much fun?! Great research and kudos to Tim O'Reilly for giving credit where credit is due.

    Posted by: Steve Repetti | January 8, 2009 7:00 PM



  2. Excelen Post XD

    Posted by: Juan Camilo Castro | January 8, 2009 7:14 PM



  3. Actually, I think you are missing an important piece of information regarding the Rick Roll.

    If I remember correctly, students at Gonzaga University did some sort of stunt at halftime of a basketball game, involving the famous Rick Astley song.

    I'm not historian so you'll have to do more research, but I think there is more to the story than just the duck on wheels.

    Posted by: Jmartens | January 8, 2009 7:22 PM



  4. of course I can't find any supporting info for my above comment, so who knows.

    Posted by: Jmartens | January 8, 2009 7:33 PM



  5. nice rticle

    rc

    trading tennis blog

    Posted by: rc | January 8, 2009 8:44 PM



  6. Haha, exposed!

    Posted by: Clone High | January 8, 2009 10:22 PM



  7. Honestly, it's really weird how a majority of web terms (often overused) can be traced directly to 4chan. Nice to see that you figured out a way to get a few others in there.

    Posted by: Kyle | January 8, 2009 11:11 PM



  8. It's funny, until recently I thought FTW was short for F#%k The World like in Tupac's classic song. It didnt make sense to me when people were including this abbreviation in otherwise positive statements.

    Posted by: Kjartan | January 9, 2009 12:01 AM



  9. None of those, except Web 2.0, are Web 2.0 buzzwords lol - most of them are gamer terms actually!

    Posted by: Chris Saad Posted on FriendFeed   | January 9, 2009 12:41 AM



  10. We liked the Twitter "Fail Whale": which is much better than 404 page.

    Posted by: Engago Team | January 9, 2009 1:01 AM



  11. Great article guys, love the diversity of RRW, keep it up!

    Posted by: Colly | January 9, 2009 4:11 AM




  12. So most of these aren't anything to do with Web 2.0 as they were in circulation beforehand?

    You know, it will be the suggestion that Web 2.0 is "cool" and has its own language that will probably lead its downfall. Which would be a shame, as there are some great commercial uses for Web 2.0 which companies are put off from exploring because of a perception of it being "faddish" that, sadly, this article does little to dispell.

    Ian Hendry
    CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
    http://www.wecando.biz

    Posted by: Ian Hendry | January 9, 2009 4:26 AM



  13. Nice informative & very useful blog.
    Web 2.0 is transforming the Internet into an even more powerful tool for businesses seeking to leverage technology to drive revenue.In order to effectively compete and meet the growing demands of today's more sophisticated customer, businesses are fanatically seeking to upgrade their web sites with features that enhance the user experience and deliver a measurable ROI from their marketing dollars. Businesses will focus on shifting their web sites from isolated, static information based destinations to highly functional platforms serving powerful web applications to end users that emphasize online collaboration, sharing, interaction and learning.
    Didier Grossemy Blog | Didier Grossemy On Linkedin| Didier Grossemy Profile

    Posted by: steve | January 9, 2009 5:08 AM



  14. Ha, nothing much to do with web 2.0 at all except for web 2.0 itself.

    It is sociologically interesting how a crude and almost barbaric site like 4-chan, half of which is porn, can be the source of so many web trends and tropes. Internet Youth FTW, I guess; and also anonymity, as well. Perhaps it's the essentially uncontrolled and chaotic character of the 4-chan community that is also the source of the creativity.

    Posted by: Miramon | January 9, 2009 7:57 AM



  15. Since when are these ( except for web 2.0 ) web 2.0 terms ?
    Seems like having "web 2.0" in the headline brings more visitors.
    Fail!

    Posted by: Mihai Secasiu | January 9, 2009 8:13 AM



  16. But Chris, if they move from the gaming community to other areas, isn't it legitimate to say that they are now Web 2.0 buzzwords also?

    Posted by: Ontario Emperor Posted on FriendFeed   | January 9, 2009 10:16 AM



  17. Has anyone else ever actually heard the phrase... "Eating Our Own Dogfood"?

    Posted by: Greg Givan | January 9, 2009 12:43 PM



  18. Looks like 4chan is akin to the chaos that beget the universe. Is it any wonder in such a chaos comes so many wide reaching creations?

    Posted by: Absentia | January 9, 2009 3:21 PM



  19. @Greg

    Yep, I hear this all the time. It's actually quite an important practice in the software world because, IMO, it does bring about better software if you 'eat your own dogfood'. :) If I am a chef, don't I taste my own food?

    Posted by: Brian | January 9, 2009 3:50 PM



  20. @Greg Givan:
    I have, but I work at Microsoft...

    Posted by: Ben | January 9, 2009 3:58 PM



  21. FTW seems correct. It translated onto the internet around the turn of the millenium.

    Fail(!) is another one from 4chan.

    "4chan is also believed to be the origin of Lolcats."
    Yes, yes it is.

    Eating Our Own Dogfood -- I've never even heard of this one

    Web 2.0 -- There is no point to even have this in the article. Its a pseudo-edgy term feebly forced upon people by old media.

    Posted by: Lol... srsly author | January 9, 2009 4:05 PM



  22. lolcats do come from 4chan, and weren't referred to as "lolcats" but referred to as caturday.

    Naturally someone decided to take the idea, brand it as their own and then profit from it. lol internet.

    Posted by: anonymous | January 9, 2009 4:32 PM



  23. This is fucking bull shit. FTW, fail, and Rickrolling emerged well before this "Web 2.0" crap. Does the author think the life of internet memes begins when his newfag ass learns about them? The author should be kicked in the throat.

    Posted by: Marshall Kirkfaggot | January 9, 2009 4:43 PM



  24. "lolcats do come from 4chan, and weren't referred to as "lolcats" but referred to as caturday."

    No, they're called cat macros, you cunt casket.

    Posted by: Marshall Kirkfaggot | January 9, 2009 4:45 PM



  25. Hey last commenter, you might be the smartest person on the internet, but you're a real asshole.

     Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick Author Profile Page | January 9, 2009 4:52 PM



  26. I hear "Eating your own dogfood" all the time. It's more of a developer catch-phrase, whereas some of the above are Web 2.0 specific, and most are just general internet-culture stuff that has its roots in gamer slang.

    Posted by: Cassie | January 9, 2009 4:55 PM



  27. No, I know rickrolling goes back much farther, in 2006, ebaum's world hosted a video of a girl wearing a skimpy top, then the the Rick Astley would kick in with his dedicated lyrics.

    I'm sure it didn't originate with ebaums, however, let's not be too quick to give credit to 4chan for everything.

    Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2009 5:23 PM



  28. LOL

    www.privacy.es.tc

    Posted by: Jackie Jones | January 9, 2009 5:31 PM



  29. @Marshall Kirkpatrick

    Rather than respond in a crude manner to an awful commenter, you should simply delete his comments. It is fair to say that you are ensuring the integrity of the comments.

    If his comment had been constructive you could have left it, but the manner of his comment is trollesque and deserves to be removed.

    Posted by: Anon | January 9, 2009 6:43 PM



  30. @Anon - I hear what you're saying, but I actually found his comments worthwhile content wise. Plus I'm keeping a tally of all the funniest insults I've received (primarily via Digg) over the years.

     Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick Author Profile Page | January 9, 2009 6:51 PM



  31. On Web 2.0, I think you might want to double-check the O'Reilly story.

    If prior usage or invention exists - as this post http://tinyurl.com/9cs6oy demonstrates - then one can hardly be said to have created/ invented something afresh. Right? The usage Web 2.0 has appeared as early as July 2003. The link refers to an interview with Joe Firmage on July 28, 2003. So to suggest someone coined it in 2004 is, well, a tad too late to claim coinage credit.

    Also 'eating your own dogfood' is surely a variant of a more popular American expression 'drinking your own Kool Aid'?

    Posted by: Shefaly | January 9, 2009 11:10 PM



  32. Rick Rolling what? If I recall, false links on message boards were being posted from back in the 90's. I seem to remember a few years worth of Slashdot Goatse posts and there were others before that.

    I think that Rick Rolls are simply the AOL generation's version of a tired joke.

    Posted by: Wah? | January 10, 2009 7:58 AM



  33. It's nice to see Dale Dougherty getting the recognition. That one and the Fail! were the only 2 I actually knew. I guess it's not too surprising that, in my opinion, the internet's biggest asshole, Robert Scoble doesn't even know that Dale Dougherty was the originator of the term Web 2.0. Fail! lol

    Posted by: Ray Scott | January 10, 2009 12:42 PM



  34. Wow it's cool seeing where these terms came from. It's nice to now.

    Posted by: Free Xbox 360 Games | January 10, 2009 8:42 PM



  35. Here's one whose origins I had no idea about (nice and geeky, as it happens):

    "wOOt!"

    According to Urban Dictionary:

    "Woot originated as a hacker term for root (or administrative) access to a computer. However, with the term as coincides with the gamer term, 'w00t.'

    'w00t' was originally a truncated expression common among players of Dungeons and Dragons tabletop role-playing games for 'Wow, loot!' Thus the term passed into the net-culture where it thrived in video game communities, lost its original meaning, and is now used simply as a term of excitement.

    'I defeated the dark sorcerer! Woot!'"

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woot

    Posted by: krgaskins | January 11, 2009 12:53 AM



  36. No, I know rickrolling goes back much farther, in 2006, ebaum's world hosted a video of a girl wearing a skimpy top, then the the Rick Astley would kick in with his dedicated lyrics.

    I'm sure it didn't originate with ebaums, however, let's not be too quick to give credit to 4chan for everything..

    Posted by: Dane | January 11, 2009 1:27 AM



  37. Anonymous created 98% of things that appear on the internet

    Posted by: Photo Sharing | January 11, 2009 7:49 AM



  38. Oh wow.

    So much of this is incorrect, or missing information.

    For The Win, yes came from the tv show, but re-emerged online in gaming. 'Do you want to do such and such?' 'Yes, attack, for the win!' Online, it was gamer speak originally.

    Fail also came from gaming.

    The Dogfood term, I have never heard of. Perhaps it is Microsoft, software world specific. Not a general web term.

    Everyone knows ORielly didn't come up with Web 2.0, because we were scoffing at the term/using it before the conference ever was created.

    The top two terms have nothing to do with the web, or 'web 2.0'. Having that in your title just really highlights your attempt at buzz-words for seo purposes, instead of real, solid investigative journalism and writing. Very sad to see RWW do this. I thought you buys were better than that.

    This post has just made me so sad. I thought you guys were one of the only places on the web that 'got it'.

    Posted by: DJ Sandoval | January 11, 2009 2:50 PM



  39. Re 24, 25, 29 & 30.

    Actually on 4-chan "fag" and "faggot" are almost terms of endearment, it seems. Posters who would never consider themselves to be gay seem to routinely use the term for themselves and their friends. So it's possible 24 was meant to be amusingly self-referential and maybe not even meant to be offensive. On the other hand, maybe it is :)

    Posted by: Miramon | January 12, 2009 6:59 AM



  40. I can't believe people actually argue about this stuff. Get over it!
    Before Web 3.0 comes along (I hear it's in beta), someone needs to invent a term for jerks that think they know it all, have zero social skills and like to pick on anonymous people online in a condescending manner.

    Posted by: nicholaspaul | January 13, 2009 7:55 PM



  41. attn: nicholaspaul. shut the fuck up before i cross the internet like washington did the delaware and beat you up after class

    Posted by: daftpunkringtone | January 15, 2009 7:15 AM



  42. As others pointed out, there are no much Web 2.0 terms here (except Web 2.0 itself).

    Real Web 2.0 terms are blog, ajax, social network and tag cloud. But they are not listed. Strange.

    Posted by: Edwin Martin | January 16, 2009 2:17 AM



  43. Wow it's cool seeing where these terms came from. It's nice to now..

    Posted by: Jena | January 19, 2009 1:30 AM



  44. No, I know rickrolling goes back much farther, in 2006, ebaum's world hosted a video of a girl wearing a skimpy top, then the the Rick Astley would kick in with his dedicated lyrics.

    I'm sure it didn't originate with ebaums, however, let's not be too quick to give credit to 4chan for everything..,.

    Posted by: Recar | January 20, 2009 2:48 AM



RWW SPONSORS


FOLLOW @RWW ON TWITTER

ReadWriteWeb on Facebook



TEXT LINK ADS