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.

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.

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.

‘Prosumer’ is a term coined by Alvin Toffler in the 1980s. We are a long way from that.

Congratulations for the post.
Ricardo

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.