People who opt for bashing terminology, intead of judging technology by what it is, are irrelevant. Reminds me of the famous old quotes by various public figures about how few people might need a computer, then PC, then Internet. Now it's Web2.0 turn to prove old farts wrong, I guess.

I think at the very least, "Web 2.0" is going to feel dated pretty soon. I like your term "Read/write web" although it's pretty geeky and jargony-sounding.

There is the technology question: is your book about "web 2.0 technologies" or "web 2.0 human behavior". If it's the latter, why not refer to the "shared web" or the "social web" or something?

Outside of the coolness of the technology (none of which is entirely new), the core of Web 2.0 is the embracing of the web and data itself for what its good for. If we have to label it, so be it, but I much prefer a quiet revolution to a loud one.

Nonetheless, I'm finding myself using the phrase less and less because it has become associated with so many negative ideas, and many consider it a self-serving meme designed to attract VC funding. I personally think web 2.0 is a pretty useful phrase, and I plan to continue using it, but only where it contributes to understanding. A lot of the time, it is actually more accurate to talk about the web as a platform, if that is the aspect you are referring to. I also have no issue with the word "tagging" - it's certainly much easier than typing "folksonomies". I'm not sure why Dare dislikes it.

I think ultimately we have to win back the web 2.0 meme, and make sure it's associated with positive, constructive ideas once more.

"We can easily imagine people amusing themselves in a field by playing with a ball so as to start various existing games, but playing many without finishing them and in between throwing the ball aimlessly into the air, chasing one another with the ball and bombarding one another for a joke and so on. And now someone says: The whole time they are playing a ball-game and following definite rules at every throw. And is there not also the case where we play and-make up the rules as we go along? And there is even one where we alter them-as we go along."

"See how far this new model of language is from the model of language as a calculus? Yes, there are rules, but the rules are not binding in the same way that they are in calculus. The rules of langauge do not confine every movement that is made. In languge, one can stop, metaphorically speaking, to toss the ball up into the air."

And finally: "Imagine people playing football, kicking the ball in the air, chasing, fouling each other. Is there not the case to make up the rules as we go along?"

having been socialized in the post-punk era, i see no problem in using ugly buzzwords. quite the contrary.

Are we in a social-bandwidth expansion, or OSI Level climbing, where we're going from passing data to conversations to systems designed to build lasting relationships, trust, compassion, and coherence?

Are we moving along a path going from data to knowledge to wisdom?

Are we synthesizing a social problem-solving network that finally has broken the "committee barrier" and where (N+1) people can work on a task simultaneously and come up with uniformly better results than (N) people could, without limit?

Are we moving from data-processing to context-processing to an actual interpersonal/intercultural universal translator system where someone can "hear" the message you intended to "send", instead of something else?

Are we slowly eliminating the need for "elected officials" because now it actually is possible to hold "meetings of the whole country" and vote on things, real-time, as they happen, instead of delegating our votes to people who then do something different than we would?

Are we finally on the right road to eliminating hunger, poverty, injustice, and just plain stupidity by collectively making better decisions than we ever did before?

Are we any closer to stopping World War III than we were a decade ago, at least by bringing the distant closer, learning about each other's needs and goals, and finding win -win solutions?

All of which is to say, maybe we should be looking at the outputs of the technology, not the inputs, to determine what kind of animal it is. It is what it does.

Does the system make it easier to find a successful first date yet? Does it make it easier to get from first date to second date? Does it make it easier to sustain a relationship across a lifetime of troubles, raise decent human being children, and feel good about it?

Have we cut down suicide, lonliness, depression, fragmentation, homicide, domestic violence, or even obesity?

Something like 2/3 of the US Health Care bill is due to behavioral issues, not viruses or bacteria. Have we found out how to help lean on each other constructively so we can be all we can be and cope with an amazingly complicated life, without needing the drugs?

There's a huge amount of social need that all this new stuff, "web 2.0", whatever it is, is moving towards filling. More power to it.

"Encourage each other to care. Empower each other to dare." How's that for an agenda?

Everyone "knows" what it means, except that it seems to mean something slightly different to everyone, with the end result that it iffectively means nothing and is becoming (has become ?) just more empty marketing technobabble.

The new technologies are real, and innovative advances have been made, but I think perhaps it is a mistake to try and lump them all under an umberella "version" as if they were some form of software suite.

The concepts of web 2.0 are very sound, and do indicate where the web is going.

However, the name is holding many back as the web has gone through several iterations already.