Zawodny trying to define Web 2.0

Jeremy Zawodny, Esther Dyson, Mike Arrington, and me are on a panel this week talking about Web 2.0. I guess Charles River Venture partners didn’t get the memo that I’m irrelevant to Web 2.0. Whatever that means.

Which leads me to Jeremy’s post. He’s trying to define what Web 2.0 means.

To me?

Web 1.0 was about pages. URLs.
Web 2.0 was about users. Adding them onto corporate pages. Wikis. Blogs. Myspaces.
Web 3.0 is about getting rid of pages altogether. Being able to make the Web YOU want or need. Is Twitter a page? Or a post? Or an SMS? A graph? Or a map display?

But, maybe this is just undefinable. Which means panel discussions about it are always interesting. Or should be, especially when you have an irrelevant asshat on the panel like me. 🙂

Calacanis and Vogelstein: live interview

If you missed TechMeme today (it was a slow news day, so don’t feel like you missed much) you probably didn’t see the little dustup between Jason Calacanis and a Wired Magazine journalist, who wanted an interview with Jason. Jason wanted to do that interview via email instead of on the phone. Fred Vogelstein, the journalist, didn’t want to do an email interview cause he knows that email interviews often don’t get interesting cause people who write email answers carefully consider their answers to the point of making their answers pretty boring.

I’ve been interviewed by Fred for hours (when I was in Switzerland I spent at least an hour on the phone with him) and always enjoy talking with him.

Anyway, it ended up with Fred and Jason doing the interview on Jason’s podcast. Which is interesting in of itself. I’m listening now. The interview? It’s about TechCrunch’s Mike Arrington.