I just checked out the flock blog aggregate for the first time in a while, and one thing that I was surprised to see was a post scorning the name web 2.0. Not because the name web 2.0 is a fan favorite that no one scorns, but because another Flock blog has a graphic on the bottom that says "take back web 2.0." Clearly not intended to be taken as more than a play on Firefox's take back the web, but if you're going to advocate the "buzz word" in one place, don't bash it in another.
The name Web 2.0 is not the best and some use it just to try to generate buzz or to look hipper than they are. But, what else are you going to call it? Overall it describes a distinct movement in the web in which users are switching from using the web passively to using it interactively. With such a sea change, I see no reason why web 2.0 is not a suitable name.
The real problem is the number of attributes that people try to throw in to determine if a site is web 2.0 or not. This is where I tune out. Too many try to limit what web 2.0 is by saying that it is AJAX or Folksonomy or any other limited category that excludes a bunch of great new sites. I especially dislike anyone that tries to say which technology is driving web 2.0. The only one that I would say actually drives web 2.0 is high speed internet. It's not that most of these sites couldn't have existed before or that new tech is revolutionary, it's that dial up wouldn't support it.
All that a site needs to be web 2.0 is creativity. User input and independence help.
Still in Flock, still not checking the spelling.
technorati tags: web2.0