The jargon dilemma

Tracking the O'Reilly / Web 2.0 controversy reminded me of the rap in the knuckles I got from Damien Mulley a few weeks back when posting about the Enterprise Ireland sponsored Web2Ireland conference in Dublin -

"The Web 2.0 is a load of bollox. It’s like calling a Power point
presentation Presentation 2.0 just because you found new swishes and
fadings and woosh sounds and segways. Christmas Tree 2.0 because we
have new sparkly tinsel. Been through the same hype for WAP, java,
shockwave, activewords and all the rest."

He was right and I tried desperately to wean myself off the term, but slowly and surely fell off the path to righteousness and lately even hosted a Web 2.0 Ireland Skypecast. Sheesh! I knew in the back of my mind there was a reason for my abject failure but it took Conn O'Muineachain to put words to it -

"I like it [Web 2.0] for many of the reasons others hate it: because it's shorthand, because it's vague and not completely defined, because it can mean different things.

I use it because I need a term to describe the exciting developments which are happening in internet technology.  I need such a term, because I want to tell people: "Hey - this is new!  It's not the same old internet - look at this!"

"Oh please!", say the internet professionals, and web developers, "there's nothing new here!"  Maybe that's true from a technology point of view, but I think there is something new here: people.  Where once I was bored by a web full of static shop-windows, now I find people, social networking, blogs, podcasts, flickr, boards - and used by real people - not just tech-heads."

That's the sanest and sharpest thing I've seen written in relation to this whole bruhaha. Its the reason I wish Conn would blog more regularly in English.

Others though, like Conall O'Brien, think people are idiots -

"Enough about Web 2.0 already, who gives a damn, it’s just a buzz word."

While Colm MacCarthaigh thinks that all Web 2.0 conferences are a load of nonsense -

"Both [email protected] and the O’Reilly Web 2.0 conferences seem more or less equally full of crap in general. These are some of the most buzzword-compliant back-patting timesinks going. The Irish one looks to me like a sales gig for slow-learners, and the O’Reilly one like another mock high-level strategic osmosis pool slash networking event so that some people can feel the excitement of being on the radar, yawn."

Ouch! I can understand the sentiment but wouldn't go that far at all. The Web2Ireland conference in Dublin was an excellent networking event if nothing else. Sure it could have been called something else but I doubt it would have had the same attendance and quality of panel had it not had the cachet attached to the jargon. I'm sure the Cork mini-conference would have also benefitted by use of the term, even without all this fabulous free publicity. Colm continues -

"Part of me hopes that O’Reilly goes on a total blitz with the Web 2.0 trademark, that we cease to see any use of the term and that in the process those O’Reilly conferences go away too, with maybe the exception of OSCon."

The blitz is hardly even necessary. Nick Carr got alot of heat for talking about the death of Wikipedia the other day but I think its no exaggeration to say that "Web 2.0" is now on death row. The backlash, whether justified or not, is too intense and regardless of how Tim O'Reilly responds when he gets back from holiday the terminology is already in terminal decline.

Damien will be pleased and we should all be grateful.

Comments

[Bernie Goldbach]

The substance of conferences is in the networking between attendees. It's the unconference dimension that makes the event compelling. So if your kind of people are heading towards a conference event, you go to it and discuss items of interest. Who attends conferences for the keynotes addresses? Even the best keynotes are already online, blogged, podcasted or on book shelves already.

Good people will be milling around the Cork venue--but they would probably be at an [email protected] event even if it was called "No [email protected]"

The tech world will always have its meetings and people will go to them because of the buzzwords. I'm kinda glad some bloggers who don't like the buzz words won't be adding to the queue for the free coffee on 8 June. I don't need the attitude.

[Damien Mulley]

I think it's a stupid name and really isn't very new, it's more like a new process more than new tech. However it's created a good buzz and has inspired a lot of fiddling and been very positive and showed people that you can create a company on a shoestring and have thousands or millions of people use it. It's that whole American dream of starting off with nothing and building an empire. It shows to some degree that this is indeed possible.

It's taken websites up a notch and made better user interfaces. What pisses me off more than a stupid name is all the assholes out there knocking the ideas and the fact that you can connect a clean and simple interface to a server that does all the magic at very little expense.Web 2.0 is completely over-hyped and over-sold but maybe there's so much excitement because it's fresh and ignores what the pedants want. It broke the status quo.

There's a trend for some people to bitch and moan about anything that gives someone success when it's not their success.Web 2.0, shitty name that it is, is not vapourware and people like and even adore some of these new products. There's always going to be an element of hyper-negative elitist tech people who will object to these successes and object to conferences about this "tech" that they think is below them. Web 2.0 seems vulgar to them I bet. We all know about tech snobs, this is no different.

If we have to suffer a dodgy name and some hot air for something that gives hope and ignites the pursuing of a dream then it's not that bad is it?

[Conn O Muineachain]

I just think we need a term to describe this stuff - and if we didn't have "Web 2.0" we might have to invent something even dodgier!

I think the definition given by Enterprise Ireland's Kevin Sherry is spot on (while at the same time cutting out the bullshit). “Web 2.0 is the second wave of internet business activity" http://www.firstpartners.net/blog/technology/2006/04/30/web2ireland-almost-mainstream/

[Paul O Mahony]

I think Joe Drumgoole does a fairly good job of Web 2.0 definition:
http://joedrumgoole.com/blog/2006/05/29/web-20-vs-web-10/
Again I couldnt care less what you want to call it, but like Conn I don't see the point of being selfconscious about it and changing it? I do agree that there's not a whole lot of technical innovation in it, in the sense that the technology has existed for a long time already. Its more a shift of emphasis and process as Damien suggests. If you view the WEB as a spectrum of possibilities, web 2.0 is trying to move the dial from the static, read only, top down end of the specturm towards a more dynamic, interactive and bottom up experience.