... quite surprised to have made into the "10 best (or most interesting) web 2.0 explanations" of dion hinchcliffe:
"Here is an interesting one, if more than a little obtuse."
i had to look up the word "obtuse", and it seems the honor is ambivalent: it means "not pointed or acute; blunt; -- applied esp. to angles greater than a right angle, or containing more than ninety degrees". or even plain dull. and i'm even held (only partly i hope) responsible for the web 2.0-confusion: "definitions like this are a big part of the problem people are having understanding the concepts" (even more so, because i seem to be no. 1 in Google searches for "Web 2.0 definition" ...).
well, that's funny ... it seems i simply was one of the first ever trying to find a definition, back then, six very long months ago, before "web 2.0" exploded. i posted that very fast, just before i went on holiday, because i had written a quite long internal report on the state of the blogosphere and the micro-web. and when i came back i was completely taken aback to find to have been linked to by Doc Searls and wikipedia.
so, yes, Dion is quite right when criticizing: "While technically not inaccurate, it's not very complete either." no, apparently not. i always meant to write a longer, more systematic post. but i never had the time, and after i posted this, the discourse moved to the Silicon Valley start-up thing. and the whole version-number discussion doesn't interest me much. i'm a humanities man, interested in the new kind of semantic web emerging from microcontent-set-free, beyond the economical, technological and "social" aspect ("web 2.0" was the terminological alternative for "blogosphere" back then, i faintly remember).
so i seem to owe the world a better definition. (but that is quite web 2.0: always write as if the world would listen ...)