Edwards’ staff hates the “2.0 moniker”

by on December 31, 2006

I was just reading Memeorandum and saw this article by Dan Balz, of the Washington Post, which uses this line: “Edwards 2.0 is a revised version of his beta candidacy of 2004.” I remember when a staffer first saw someone use that moniker, showing his Blackberry over to Edwards, and saying “I hate when they say ‘Edwards 2.0′.” Edwards himself didn’t seem to mind, though.

By the way, Dan’s article is right on point with what I observed — that Edwards has spent a lot of time overseas beefing up his foreign policy depth. After spending several hours getting a grade-A education in politics from Dan (he’s been covering politics for the Washington Post since 1978) I’m now a huge fan and will read everything he writes.

Why did the staffer care so much? My guess? Because he knew that “2.0 moniker” causes debates on tech blogs. Many geeks hate the name Web 2.0 although it’s starting to stick as a descriptor for a wide range of sites that have community interaction and new-style technology and layout.

  • Anonymous
    My only question is, will there ever be a case where we won't label a new web company as "Web 2.0?" If I decide to build a site without community interaction, that makes me my site a non-Web 2.0 site? Google Maps doesn't have community interaction - is it Web 2.0 or not? What is community interaction anyway? Message boards have been around for ages. What kind of community interaction do you need to have to qualify as Web 2.0?

    From what I can tell, the only purpose "Web 2.0" serves is as a marketing term for startups to get VC/TC attention and a buzzword for non-techies appear tech-savvy.

    Seriously, just have a read over what you just wrote: "Many geeks hate the name Web 2.0 although it’s starting to stick as a descriptor for a wide range of sites that have community interaction and new-style technology and layout."

    What on earth is "new-style technology". AJAX? It's fun when non-developers think they know what they're talking about. What else besides AJAX? And "layout"? Are you serious? Somehow the "layout" of a site determines whether or not it's Web 2.0? What if has a non-Web 2.0 layout (whatever that is) and community interaction (whatever that is). Is it still Web 2.0? Or is it Web 1.5?

    I honestly have yet to see a clear, crisp definition of the term. To me, it just looks like its thrown around arbitrarily.

    So, "Web 2.0" followers, help me out here. I'm a software developer and as tech-savvy as I am, I really have no idea what Web 2.0 really means.
  • Google Maps can be mashed up into sites that have community interaction. I've seen many, many things put on top of Google Maps. So, because of that, yeah, it's Web 2.0.

    New tech? Definitely AJAX. That makes today's sites much different than was possible back in 1999.

    To me, it's like pornography. I know one when I see it, but not quite sure how to define it. :-)
  • When the Endwards campaign is overwhelmed with information, how do they prioritize what really reflects what America's thinking?

    This statement makes me wonder: "...showing his Blackberry over to Edwards.." How much of the world can you monitor via your Blackberry? I read blogs via mine (Google Reader), but it's slow going. I have to prioritize. Does the Edwards campaign have the bandwidth on the road to really monitor a lot of blogs? Or are they still just keeping their finger on the pulse of the mainstream media (i.e, reading what the Washington Post has to say)?
  • Moose A Moose
    The 2.0 momiker IS stupid. It's called progress. People use the 2.0 naming schema to make things sound "cool" for marketing.

    When do we know we've gone to 3.0? Who is the governing body that makes that determination? What standards need to be achieved? What's a disqualifier?

    People will name things anything they can to make a buck. I remember being a young kid in the 70s, and toy makers started releasing toys and games with the letter "x" stategically placed somewhere in the item's title. The toy was really no better. Same for cars. Does a Camero with Z in the title make it better than a GTO with no Z? Likewise, does calling something Web 2.0 imply or guarantee greatness?

    I miss the old days when I had but a Commodore 64 and yearly subscriptions to Creative Computing. Those were the days when I felt that computers were exciting. Needless to say the music was better then.
  • LayZ
    I think Edwards campaign is more like a slipstreamed version of "Edwards 1.0"
  • dhan
    Talking about Web 2.0, see how social networking sites can take a sad turn.
    http://digg.com/videos/comedy/Unauthorized_usag...

    This girl basically was tracked down to her apt and phone number.
    Tells you something about staying anonymous over the web.
  • Goebbels
    It's politics, dumbass. They don't care about tech but know what 2.0 means. It means he had to make himself over because he was a loser the first time, that he's trying to change his image.

    Image changes aren't good in politics if they are apparent and necessary.

    Moreover, if he hasn't changed but people think it was necessary, then he's STILL a loser.

    That's the rationale. Nothing to do with geeks.
  • Web 2.0 Is Like Pornography

    Tim O'Reilly coined the term "Web 2.0" in 2004. In 2006, Web founder Sir Tim Berners-Lee sagely observed that "nobody knows what it means":

    http://tinyurl.com/y6ewzy

    And now in 2008, the most honest thing we can say is that "Web 2.0" means whatever the techno-marketeer (ab)using it wants it to mean. Otherwise, why would intelligent people like Isaac O'Bannon still be writing articles asking "What is Web 2.0?":

    http://tinyurl.com/5solok

    And, why would McKinsey's just-released best-of-breed report entitled "Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise" ...

    http://tinyurl.com/6sxls7

    ... include no attempt at defining the term other than to list the "Web 2.0 Tools" that comprise or enable it? And even there, the chief ingredient is identified only as "Web Services", adding more mystery to the mix as one ethereal term is offered up to explain another.

    As originated in an Onstartups.com website design posting...

    http://tinyurl.com/576sgs

    ... "Web 2.0" is like pornography: Nobody has defined it, but you know it when you see it.

    Bruce Arnold, Web Designer, Miami Florida
    http://www.PervasivePersuasion.com
blog comments powered by Disqus