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.
Good. It’s also a term that is ambiguously defined. Rob Goodspeed calls it this, Alex Howard calls it that, and Tara Hunt illustrates it another way.
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.
Thoughts?
About Ari Herzog
I hear you, Ari. 2.0 terms do smack of buzzwords but I’d argue that there’s a need for an umbrella term for certain things. In the next book, I switch between ‘emerging technologies’ and ‘Enterprise 2.0.’ I needed something.
.-= From Phil Simon to you: An Open Letter to Jeff Bezos =-.
I’m also sick of web 2.o anything.
Can’t wait for web 3.o to get here..
I think the versionizing is part of the buzz to keep people updating, upgrading, buying. As you say, it is a needless addition.
But, let’s face it: only very few people speak out against this and therefore the madness continues.
But glad you’re brave enough to point this out, and thanks for sharing on your blog.
.-= From Henrik Blunck to you: Passing By WordPress Version 2.9 =-.
Agree with you on this:
“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. ”
Change the word “people” to citizens and I’m cool with that part. But as a trainer, I disagree with you here:
“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.”
I use the term with government employees and here’s why: there is a fundamental culture shift that needs to take place in government. And we need to understand where we’ve been and where we are going. We need to share an inspiring and compelling vision for the future. And that vision needs a name for people to be able to crystallize and form community around it.
Think of sports teams. Or churches. Or [insert group here]. People who belong to those groups affiliate around a clear name and/or concept. They band together and talk about their team or their denomination. They recruit new fans and followers.
It’s kind of hard to say you should root for the guys in blue and green. Too nebulous. So you’ve got to nail down something that is tangible enough for people to rally around.
I’m still unapologetically using Government 2.0!
Go Gov 2.0!
Oh, and we’re talking about it’s definition in the Government 2.0 Club on GovLoop:
http://www.govloop.com/group/government20club. Join the club.
When does the time come — does the time come? — when Government 2.0 says byebye and Government 2.5 or 3.0 or 5.0 is born?
Hi Ari,
I tend to agree with you. The meaning of “Gov 2.0″ has been discussed at length recently on Govloop. Here’s what I had to say:
I don’t think that there is a real meaning to Gov 2.0. It means all sorts of different things to different people.
Ultimately, it comes from “Web 2.0″ (as do most of the other “2.0″ buzzwords). If you listen To Tim O’Reilly (the guy who coined “Web 2.0″) he’ll tell you it wan’t meant as a version number. it was meant as a statement “the web is back” after the dot.com bubble burst gave people the impression that the Web was dead. It was a way of saying, that there are a whole bunch of exciting new technologies that are going to have a significant impact. I don’t think anyone is saying “government” is back for a second wave.
Personally, I try not to use “Web 2.0″. I think the term is kind of tired and passed its prime. Heck, people have been talking about Web 3.0 for a few years now. How soon until “Web 4.0″? I prefer to talk about emerging web technologies.
To a certain extent I think that when I use “Gov 2.0″ I am referring to the changes to government operations (internal and external) brought about by emerging web technologies. But it can go a few steps further. One is if we look at the changes in society brought about by emerging web technologies and the pressures that those societal changes will bring to bear upon government. Others look at the complete range of societal changes that are on the horizon (from all technology changes – not just web technologies, from demographic changes, etc.) and the effect they’ll have on government. A lot of people are using Gov 2.0 like that – the new government taking all changes into account.
The problem with not doing that is you just get one piece of the puzzle. The problem with doing that is that the changes aren’t going to stop. Will we soon see a “Gov 3.0″ and a “Gov 4.0″?
Some people respond by focusing on the particular changes in this round that they see as important. On the web side, those are the people that are talking about “social media”. On the government side, they may be talking about “open government”. But again, that only looks at one side of the changes that we’re dealing with.
Maybe we need to talk about “emerging government” or some other neutral term that recognizes the constant nature of the change and its importance.
(While I’d prefer “emerging government”, I must admit I find myself using “Gov 2.0″ a lot because it is the term my audience is looking for.)
To me, 2.0 for Web is fine. But government 2.0 is hilarious.
Hi Ari — Thanks for the mention! I think the Obama folks are really trying to use Gov 2.0 to actually transform government . . . . By the way, I work for IBM — not our friends at MicroSoft! Hope all is going well — JOHN K.
Thanks for the correction, I knew something looked weird! And if Gov 2.0 is as you say transformative, why not call it transformative?
Ah… er… I thought we were on Web 3.0 now?
Didn’t Tim O’Reilly say so?
Personally, I’m looking forward to Ari 2.0!
J/K, and I this stuff gets a little out of hand to be sure.
.-= From Dave Doolin to you: Antti Kokkonen – When it has to be done right =-.
I am Ari 34.0 for the record.
I tagged a version on my website a long time ago… there are still times I run into kikolani 2.0 reminders. I remember doing that a lot back in the early 90′s with some of my old websites.
.-= From Kristi @ Blogging Tips to you: Fetching Friday – Resources Mashup & Official Eclipse Trailer =-.
Versioning. Great for software, bad for politics.
What disgusts me more is how the media picks up on these things then clings and over-uses them until they have no meaning at all. I still enjoy your posts Ari, thanks for keeping on!
.-= From Wayne John @ Southern California to you: Toyota – Moving Forward =-.
3.0 is right around the corner; already buzz here and there, what then?
For the record, I agree and could surely live without it.
I’m with Wayne, software yes, anything else no.
President-elect will be President-BETA?
.-= From Dennis Edell to you: Do You Have a Good Website/Blog Designer? Meet CJ – My Awesome New Designer! =-.
I thought Web 2.0 mania had died down already? I didn’t hear anything about it for more than a year. I thought many people are already sick of it too, like you. Even I am tired of hearing this. It is always number 1 or 2, these are some “special” numbers it seems.
Did we just skip Web 1.0? If Web 1.0 was the beginning, then anything that is Web 2.0 must be the equivalent of being in first grade. When I hear people talking about Web 2.0, the first thing that comes to mind are those old AOL frisbee CD’s that I would get in the mail sometimes three times a week! That finally stopped, and all the talk about Web 2.0 most certainly will too.
That’s true Ari. There are too many people who don’t like Web 2.0 expression including myself. But from the other hand there should be some sort of expression that indicated the shift of the industry. It just would’ve been better if the name was more self descriptive instead of Web 2.0. Thanks God it’s we are moving forward with whole digits and it’s not something like Web 2.5.8