As for government 2.0, I can see the value in using it but I could see myself easily using the term “e-government”, “e-participation”, etc.

My only real contribution is that I find the whole debate of terminology, scope and usage very interesting as this is similar to the debate that is happening with the term “cloud computing”. Its scope debatable. It has no consensus over its definition . It is often conceptual very similar to one or more existing concepts (grid computing, utility computing, SaaS, etc).

In this cloud debate, I found this person’s analogy of “defining a table” very helpful so I thought I would share it. See http://gevaperry.typepad.com/main/2009/01/what-is-a-cloud-first-define-a-table-the-furniture-kind-that-is.html

Ari, I found your list (and links) interesting and compelling. [http://ariwriter.com/2008/11/top-10-reasons-why-versioning-the-web-is-silly/]

However, I disagree with a few points.

1) I don’t think many people actually understand “the web”. I know lots of people that type URLs into Google cause they think that Google is the “web” or people that still use AOL who thinking its the “web”.

2) See “define a table” analogy from above, or rather “you know it when you see it” argument

3) There doesn’t have to be a Web 1.0 or Web 3.0 just because there was a Web 2.0. By the time “Web 3.0″ rolls around people will use another term to classify it. I think of Windows 2000 being followed by XP being followed by Vista. I think of Generation X, being followed by Millennials now instead of “Generation Y”….speaking of which going back to 2) how do you define generation x? people argue over the exact date ranges of this generation and conceptually its descriptors can be vague or imprecise.

4) I completely agree with the digital divide statement but not sure how that relates to the whole versioning argument.

5) I can explain a lot of things without knowing the etymology of a word. Although I think knowing the etymology helps. Knowing that he is a publisher and sells books and that his goal isn’t understanding but rather money making and marketing; I mean he trademarked the phrase.

6) Just because high schoolers and digital natives don’t know the term, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or doesn’t have value. Plus they are hardly the “experts”. Many digital natives use a technology but often have no real understanding of how the technology functions or the socio-technical implications of it.

….

Basically the list makes it seem that the justification and validity of the term relates to its popularity among certain population groupings, which reinforces the whole marketing approach.

As in… if celebrities know it (letterman), if the kids on the street know it (high schoolers), if family members know it (grandma), if the news knows it (denver post), or the TV tells me it, then it must exist and be valid. If “they” don’t say it, then its not valid? … I’m not sure about the whole social constructionism approach.

…but who knows maybe one day (perhaps shortly) we might see the term “web 2.0″ on Save the Word -> http://savetheword.org/

I’ve never been a fan of 2.0 this, 2.0 that, including the term of government. I’m willing to bet, Adriel, outside of a couple people here and there, most of the 175 million-membership of Facebook have never heard the term Government 2.0, let alone Web 2.0. Not to mention the local high school students I’ve met who are active on Facebook but never heard of “social media.”

Kids say the darnedest things and if you approach a 7-year-old, she probably knows what the word, “government” means. Ask her for a versioned definition, and she’ll stay mum. Same for the web. Same for anything else.

I appreciate your evangelism for Government 2.0, and posts like this help me remember why I like reading your blog, but I’m equally passionate about killing the term.