...ah...so many people are getting mileage out of the whole 'Web 2.0 sux' meme (this quote is attributed to one of my favourite snarkers from down under)...including my own recent gaffs with a certain article. I should clarify what I see is going down.

The term Web 2.0 is what is at issue here. It was beaten to death, debated and discussed, meant as a catch-all for a movement that is taking place that is very real and very hopeful. The problem with naming something before it has really run its course is that the hype overtakes the good work. To loosely quote my fellow Seattle PI interviewee:

"I'll bet they didn't run around during the Renaissance, saying, 'Wow, look at this Renaissance!'"

But, besides drinking our own Koolaid, which is from whence the criticism derives, there IS something significant going down. I don't think that this is a bubble, either, I think there really is a change in culture taking place and it is being both aided by and derived from the tools that are attributed to Web 2.0 - RSS, blogs, wikis, and other social software.

We have more ways to connect and to be heard. The individual, no matter how anonymous, has new ways to amplify their voice. Certainly, though, we still see hierarchies at work within this new framework. The 'A-Listers' have more of an impact than a blogger with a handful of readers. But that's a whole other issue.

And, really, the Power of Us economy is still having nominal impact in the general public to date (although I do think it will grow).

So, what the 'Web 2.0 sux' comment derives from is a cautionary message: "Don't get too excited yet...we still have a long way to go..."

So, Web 2.0 doesn't suck, it's not REALLY about the beer, and it's not about the people (I really hate going there, too, because it trivializes the cultural change). Web 2.0 is the desire to name a movement that hasn't quite matured yet. What washes out in the end may or may not resemble O'Reilly's clever conference title.