Online shared intelligence

Intelligentsia 2.0

All buzzwords outlive their usefulness, and go from mandatory conversational drop-in to snobbish drop-out tag. That almost magical polarity change happens usually shortly after the buzzword in question is mercilessly extended beyond their original scope, until it’s left hanging ‘out there’, with little or no connection to the original meaning. Is that happening with the ‘2.0′ thingy?

Don’t blame me for being buzzword-agnostic: twenty five years in technology are enough to kill buzzword sensibility. Perhaps I should clarify that rather than agnostic, the right qualifier would be antagonistic: it’s not that I don’t believe in buzzwords, it’s really  that I believe (and know) that they end up used for inflicting much more damage to reason and the collective IQ than benefiting it. The 2.0 postfix is no exception. Wired-to-tired.

From a wonderful way of grouping equally wonderful technologies that empowered hyper-connected users (as if such a demographic really needed any further boosts beyond those of wealth, class and education), the 2.0 ‘thingy’ got increasingly appropriated by young X-ers, who wield it with the same acumen as a scalpel ready to castrate anything “old”. 

Social networking is technically 2.0. Hard to disagree with that, just look at the technology and functional stacks, right? Well, yes, in principle, but not necessarily in execution… Trace the Web 2.0 technology stack back a few years, and you will find that early users of the term were, and most of us still are, in love with concepts such as the semantic web, topic maps, ontology, semantic meshes and much more as the true inspirational forces justifying a technology refresh; the 2.0 technologies were just early moves in those directions. And yet, try to find anything substantially semantic done beyond tag clouds and better online usability, even in social networks and collaboration products, and there is very little to show for it (the truth is, semantics is not a trivial game to be played by a handful of AJAX and WS hacks in a few agile iterations).

But that is OK, I guess, technologies and paradigms (oops, as an old friend used to say, wait for the word paradigm to emerge and then leave the room really fast)  take time to mature. The problem is, in the meanwhile, 2.0 got hijacked and became something else. Web 2.0 is

• Young, specifically, generation-X-er. If X-ers do it, it’ll take the world by storm, and it’s archetypically good. By default, you are old if you don’t do it. And of course, the fact that you don’t do it is bad. Take twitting. You may be just humble enough to know that infinitesimal changes in your state of mind don’t matter more than the noise of cars in the freeway to others. Or, you may be the kind of person that needs long, quiet, contemplative moments of inspiration and concentration in your daily routine, away from twitts, toots and tettes. Because of any of those reasons (many more available), you don’t twitt. You are old. You are (like I keep hearing from so many beautiful, 2.0 people) “so 1.0-ish”, or “so 1.0!” for short.
• Anti-restrain, anti-hierarchy, anti-confidentiality, anti-structured. By association, any hierarchically, control-based, structured collaboration system is 1.0. Protection of intellectual property? Corporate liability? Compliance? Management structures? Project management? Accountability? Nah… don’t bother
• A vague, increasingly threatening, ad-hominem attack, one that is accepted beyond PC-filters and netiquette. You can find it wielded in reverse (as in “this that I am saying would be just another unproved and unsubstantiated generality… but wait! I am an X-er, I have been around 2.0 all my life, so I don’t need to be rigorous”)

And all of the sudden, strange things like “Enterprise 2.0″ are engendered. You can read postings from very articulate and intelligent people (some of whom I have in my RSS list), who start to fly away from reality and talking about bringing FaceBook into the corporate network, and start announcing the funeral of Office (specially spreadsheets, so structured, so 1.0 ).

Uhhh? I don’t know, call me skeptic, or perhaps it’s that I am “so 1.0″… But I’ve been around a zillion of 2.0-like iterations, seen their fizzle go up and down, and when the dust clears, 1.0’s are still around, yes, irreversibly changed for the better, but still around. From mainframe to PC to LAN to Client-Server to networked computers to n-tier to … (can keep going at least for four more lines). Every time, the 2.0 would eliminate the 1.0. Yet, I know that there quite a few PDP-11s still buried in the organic systems running mission-critical applications out there (how about flight control computers? or nuclear monitoring apps?). Don’t believe it, OK, let’s replace them with those so-long-ago-extinguished mainframes, or PL1 programs, whatever.

The truth is, not only 1.0 turn out to be much more resilient than expected: 2.0 tend to have quite a lot of weak spots as well (how else would we sustain the next iteration?). Ad so, the 2.0s get looked at, taken apart, deconstructed, resisted, imitated, plagiarized, even perverted, by wise practitioners of the 1.0. In the process, some memes and genetic material gets lose, like a fine pollution, just like polen, and spread around the crevices of the 1.0… The rest of the ecology parable is easy to imagine…

So, call me 1.0-ish, but I know that change, REAL change, the one that change peoples’ lives, doesn’t happen in 2.0 waves, but rather 1.1.17 ripples. Today, tag clouds are as far as it gets, but hey, you can find tag clouds even in mainframe apps. Web services are starting to permeate all existing systems, and now even mainframe apps have gone beyond encapsulating a Cobol routine into WS wrappers. Like tides, each one of those cycles got organically deconstructed, and a few memes and genes stayed around for good

So, I am not interested on disqualifying the old just for the sake of it. I have no presumption that radically new ways of doing things will put the old to rest. I am skeptical as it relates to such profound transformations. Instead, give me concrete, benefit-bound memes that we can insert into every-day people’s routines. Yes, Office apps are SO 1.0… but you know what? Hundreds of millions of users use them every day, in most cases not by their own decision. So, can your wonderful, 2.x app do away with the need for Office? That is great, I truly believe it can, and I am sure at some point, many years from now, it may (I even helped conceive a few such apps years ago).

In the meanwhile, PLEASE give me a way to save those hundreds of millions of users headaches when they want to edit an Office document from ANY Web 2.0 app, and I will get really excited as well; I can’t avoid it, I am very 1.0, and I am growing old… I just can’t get off from my mind the thought of giving millions of people a happy second or two. And you will have contributed to the next iteration, Enterprise 1.1.17.b, not an easy feat…

More important, by not alienating ‘the natives’, we will have managed to increase 2.0’s chance of growing into an unstoppable tsunami. Remember, I didn’t say that I don’t believe in those wonderful 2.0-ish thingies. On the contrary, I am just getting irritated by the irresponsible BS and prepotence that slow them down by creating antibodies faster than infected cells. 

Be well, in peace  :)

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 31st, 2008 at 2:21 pm and is filed under desktop tools, enterprise collaboration, social networking, web 2.0. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.