I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — in capital letters this time as a sign of my increasing frustration: STOP VERSIONING THE WEB!
Anything 2.0 describes your brain waves whenever you see the phrase, “social media.”
You can make as many arguments as you like, use as much pretty language as you like, but Web 2.0, Government 2.0, Business 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Anything 2.0 is but a another way of saying each concept is open, transparent, collaborative, participatory: social.
Focusing on Government 2.0, for instance, IBM’s John Kamensky wrote three years ago:
[It] isn’t a project or just a set of tools. It is a capability, another way to get work done. It is a philosophical shift that demands that government be willing to give up and/or share control over information. As a result, it can be a double-edged sword that allows self-organizing systems outside government control.
The problem with versions like Web 2.0, as I specified in the top-most link above, is Tim O’Reilly is the name always associated with Web 2.0. It doesn’t matter if you don’t know who he is, nor should it matter that he asks people to define concepts like Government 2.0. At stake is Joe Public asks me to explain the difference between social media and web 2.0, and I say there is no difference. You can argue semantics; but if we agree the semantics are irrelevant to Joe Public, why call something other than what it is?
People are smart and even if they don’t understand the WHY of social media, they sure as heck grasp WHAT it is due to mass media and public perception; and they can explain, without knowing anything else, why TV is not social media and Facebook is. Who cares what Web 2.0 is or isn’t? Its answers are the same as social media’s answers. Ditto for Government 2.0, Business 2.0, and their ilk.
Steve Radick is on the money that people need to experience concepts like Government 2.0, but he admits people don’t need to know what the version means. In my opinion, they don’t care and would be more confused if you tell them. People generally don’t like change, so I don’t use 2.0 language in my workshops and I try my darnedest not to use such terminology in my blog posts.
“To the average citizen,” Radick writes about open government processes, “It’s not revolutionary; it’s just another government website.”
Anything 2.0 is a neologism of semantics. Stop using the 2.0 and please continue calling business, government, the web, and anything else that’s changing by the precise words that exist before the numbers following them, such as anything.