While I’ve talked about ‘Web 2.0′ before in a neutral context before, I often find it difficult to stomach the variety of ’2.0′ variations that have a tendency to profilerate in the collective knowledge management context.
The concept of ‘Web 2.0′ comes from a very real place — the idea that the internet as an entity is moving from less of a static, passive place to one that is participative and inclusive. It’s a noble vision that we should the internet will eventually realize.
But the whole concept of ’2.0′ is in danger of becoming so diluted that it’s just meaningless. Last month, David Gurteen talked about just about everything in terms of 2.0 — and demonstrated how two numerals and a decimal can be dangerous.
In a single article, he managed to talk about not only Web 2.0, but also about Enterprise 2.0, Managers 2.0, Libraries 2.0, Learning 2.0, Business 2.0, Education 2.0 and ultimately, World 2.0.
While I understand the primary thrust of his point (that our perspective on how we organize ourselves in changing and evolving to be more partcipative), there is an inherent danger to referring to ‘______ 2.0′ — and it’s a confusion of cause and effect.
In the article, he relates the story of someone who spoke up during one of the sessions he was leading:
But the ‘2.0 meme’ is affecting everything. In a talk in Kuala Lumpur I was asked how you implement Enterprise 2.0 and I was replying when someone spoke up and said “We will never have Enterprise 2.0 until we have Managers 2.0!” In other words, it was managers and their out-dated mindsets that presented a major barrier to change.
So managers are the problem? It seems unclear from this conclusion how Web 2.0 is going to have any impact on how managers do their jobs — the conclusion that seems to be drawn here is that ‘Managers 2.0′ would be an inclusive and participative management style.
The real mirage here is the idea of inclusiveness. Unfortunately, democratic inclusiveness is not always a good thing — there are times where dictatorial, autocratic management styles win the day. Ironically, the military’s brought up just a bit later on in this article:
Another talk I gave in SE Asia was to SAFTI (the Singapore Armed Forces Training Institute) and there I realised that the 2.0 concept could be applied to the military too. In the past, warfare was a relatively simple affair; there were rules of engagement and things such as the Geneva Convention. It was a male dominated world, but now with terrorism, men, women and children are actively involved in the fighting – there are few rules of engagement. It’s complex – everyone participates.
The complexity and anarchic nature of modern warfare does not mean that participation and inclusiveness are necessarily going to remedy anything — and in many cases, they could actually make things worse. While the changing face of warfare certainly requires increased investment in human intelligence (which by nature is associative and participative), that’s a far cry from ‘Military 2.0′.
While attaching a ’2.0′ to words has become a cliche, I agree with David Gurteen that it demonstrates the pervasiveness of the ’2.0 mindset’. Yet, with such pervasiveness also comes dilution: the meaning of ’2.0′ starts to become eroded as it is used so widely.
Take another example that’s provided in the same article:
So what does this mean in its broadest sense? Well, we are no longer consumers of goods, services or education – we are all ‘prosumers’; that is, we all have the opportunity to create and consume. For the first time we are participants in everything and not the ‘victims’. Fundamentally, it is about our new freedom.
This is one of the biggest fallacies of the whole ’2.0′ movement. While the Web 2.0 provides us with the opportunity to participate, we simply don’t all want to be participating. I believe there’s a silent majority that prefer to be consumers and not participators.
Blogging is a perfect example. According to most statistics I’ve ever read, the highest estimates put the number of blog readers who comment on blogs at 50% (here’s a link to a not-so-scientific study of this phenomenon). From my own experience with blogs, I’d say it’s far less than that.
Ironically, the proliferation of ’2.0′ as a term with diluted meaning is a reflection of the dilution of participation itself. Let’s take blogging as an example — on almost any established blog, the majority of readers arrive through search engines; and leave just as quickly as they’ve come.
We’re an increasingly fractured and diffuse audience — and we often don’t have the time or the attention span to participate. And if you’re reading this blog and have never left a comment, you just proved my point. 
Like this post? Subscribe now to the full RSS feed.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I agree with your concerns, however I think its all part of the lifecycle. You might remember that during the dot com boom, everything was ‘e’. I think only e-learning and e-commerce (to a limited extent) has survived from that period?
September 4th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I agree that it’s part of the lifecycle — and also that that dreaded little ‘e’ was used along the same lines. I would also venture to say that when most of hear ‘e’ anything, it sounds out-of-date. Even ‘e-business’ and ‘e-commerce’ sounds kind of passe to me.
I think this just goes to show exactly what I’m arguing — that overuse tends to dilute the meaning of a potentially useful piece of technology verbiage. The hype was very much the same with the ‘e’ as well — it was going to solve all our problems. But in many senses, while it solved many problems, it created a different (but arguably more limited) set of problems.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:24 am
I think you touched very well the driver. People in general, managers in particular. If you get 100 persons from the street 85-95 are against change movements. So dealing with 2.0 or 5.0 is the same. The problems that emerge are the same. I love change. It’s what keeps me alive.
Congratulations for the post.
Ricardo
September 17th, 2008 at 6:05 am
It really is a concept with numerous definitions. I’d say often internet users: ‘People 2.0′ : ) abuse the Web 2.0 concept and treat it as something completely new when in reality many of the technology components of “Web 2.0″ have existed since the early days of the Web…, but Google for web 3.0 , 4.0, 5.0 and you’ll see that it’s not the end of it
September 17th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Very insightful post (link emailed by colleague to an old-fashioned email list!). Made me think of a talk I attended at my university in Peru. The year was 1993. The speaker was an IT professor from California, complete with dreadlocks and beer belly. The subject was this new thing that was going to change the world – the WWW. “The world is my computer” I remember was one of his catchphrases. He painted a world of participation, collaboration and freedom – and it didn’t sound a million miles from web 2.0. Idealism has that effect – it focuses on long term goals and then makes claims about short term achievements.
‘Prosumer’ is a term coined by Alvin Toffler in the 1980s. We are a long way from that.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Thanks for your insights on this. I think the overall thrust of my argument here is exactly what you’ve alluded to George — that idealism is, well, exactly that. While there are a group of internet users who perhaps truly are ‘People 2.0′ (if I can borrow your phrase, David), we need to make sure we don’t forget about the far greater number of users who only see the internet as a tool for checking email and doing web searches.
It’s not that forays into the world of ’2.0′ are wrong — I’m simply arguing for a balanced, rational approach that doesn’t promise the world to the everyday user. The ‘mundane’ aspects of the web remain its killer apps — banking, email and instant messaging. And if you look at most organizations, many have yet to even embrace instant messaging, let alone blogs, wikis or anything else ’2.0′. So while enthusiasm for new technologies is great, a cautious approach is always wise.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
[...] Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Managers 2.0, Libraries 2.0, Learning 2.0, Business 2.0, Education 2.0. Der Autor macht sich einige Gedanken, wohin diese 2.0-Invasion führen kann. Ein Punkt hat mir besonders gut gefallen: “This is one of the biggest fallacies of the whole ‘2.0? movement. While the Web 2.0 provides us with the opportunity to participate, we simply don’t all want to be participating. I believe there’s a silent majority that prefer to be consumers and not participators.” (via David Gurteen) Lucas McDonnell, lucasmcdonnell.com, 2 September 2008 [...]
September 18th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Thanks for a thought provoking post. I think you’ve expressed something that needed to be said, but I’d like to add a couple of thoughts.
I believe a silent majority does exist – on any given subject and in any given medium of communication. Not because it doesn’t want to participate, but because people express themselves in so many ways it is unlikely any one medium will have a significant proportion of a population’s opinions – for example some people prefer to talk face to face rather than on an online forum, or write a book rather than debate.
In other words, we will all participate, just not in the same way, and not necessarily on the same topic.
I think the connection between your thoughts and David’s is that the idea of “2.0″ needs to take this variety into consideration. In a more participative “World 2.0” more people will be more interactive, but not necessarily using Web 2.0.
I’d add that there is always a take up lag between the people who predict new ways of working and the mass take up (which usually only happens providing people can see the personal benefit – compare the take up of automobiles, mobile phones and video).
That doesn’t mean to say a particular change won’t happen, but it may take far longer than expected – perhaps even generations – and by the time it does a new idea is being developed and touted.
So I quite agree that advocates of a new idea “promising the world to the everyday user” is a bad thing, leading to hype and bubbles. That being said, I wouldn’t agree with the implication of your post that this is what David has done; I’d argue he’s articulating, not pushing, a concept.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Thanks for your very insightful comment Alistair. I certainly didn’t intend to imply that David was ‘pushing 2.0′, but rather that there is a sometimes a more subtle trickle-down effect when in cases like this.
Let me also say that I’m a great admirer of David’s often-unconventional thinking on many topics, and I think he approaches Web 2.0 in general with a genuine enthusiasm. But the effect of that genuine enthusiasm is that is gets other people excited about Web 2.0 as well — which in itself is probably a very good thing.
The tendency that I worry about is that others in KM or related fields start to believe that there is a bigger uptake around 2.0 than there actually is — and start to make ‘Web 2.0′ too big a part of their approach to their organizational KM mandate (related to this is the fact that Web 2.0 is really a technology enabler, and doesn’t do much for people who aren’t comfortable with or generally don’t like the internet).
I look at it as akin to building a good financial portfolio. For most people, having some stocks would probably be a good investment, as long as they take on an appropriate level of risk and keep some safer investments. ‘Web 2.0′ is the stock part of that portfolio — it’s not for everyone, and it’s a bit more risky than sticking with the old standbys. That’s not to say I’m against stock investing (i.e. Web 2.0 if you’re still following this overextended metaphor), just that it has a time and place, and is not a get-rich-quick kind of approach (which, again, I’m not suggesting that David is purveying at all). ‘Web 2.0 tools’ are a great set of instruments for accomplishing certain tasks, and while they may grow in popularity, we need to remember that there are those who still sit watching from the sidelines.