The Not Web 2.0 discussion has legs. Dave Winer pointed to Dare Obasanjo’s post, specifically this bit:
“The problem with ‘Web 2.0’ and other over hyped buzzwords is that 90% of the stuff you hear or read about it is crap.”
I agree, provided my blog is in the top 10% of Web 2.0 content ;-). But to be fair to Dare, he also states this:
“On the other hand I completely grok the simple concept that folks like me at MSN are no longer just in the business of building web sites, we are building web platforms.”
Now that’s what it’s all about!
Also I note that Tim Bray recently updated the Wikipedia definition, leaving this little comment on the History page:
“Tone down the cheerleading”
Fair point. And even though I’m in the top 5% of Web 2.0 blogs (I just promoted myself), I’m guilty of writing some rubbish now and then too. Ben Barron called me on it recently. Here he is quoting my stuff, adding his own regurgitation sound effects:
“Apologies, I was just sick — Sometimes it’s involuntary, as I excited as I am about the “Semantic Web” – Some of us would rather get hit down by a car than be infinite in our praise (or jest 😉 of “Web 2.0”. I’m a fan of Rich’s stuff on ReadWriteWeb.com but (oops I chucked again) remember Rich there was alot of PAIN : “It’s an era of unprecedented construction (vomit) on the Web and this has generated a lot of excitement and optimism. (vomit) As Danny Ayers pointed out when he referenced Ian Davis’ words: “Web 2.0 is an attitude (now its blood) not a technology”.”
Ouch 🙂 But well deserved. I’m on great terms with Ben, so I joked about it in an email discussion afterwards. I promised him I’d keep it REAL on my blog and not get carried away with the excitement of the current era. My current theme is talking about how Web 2.0 is being put into practice in the ‘Real World’ (see this week’s Web 2.0 Weekly Wrap-Up), but I must remember to keep the Rah-Rah out of my Web 2.0 writing 😉
