« Office 2.0 Conference...attending (and presenting) with a big smile on my face | Main | Frank Quattrone is cleared and ready for (another) take off? »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c626b53ef00d8343110d353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The word "Enterprise"...the Rodney Dangerfield of the new media:

» The word "Enterprise"...the Rodney Dangerfield of the new media from Openpedia.org
[Source: The Ponderings of Woodrow] quoted: Why is it that enterprise-related news, discussions and analysis in the blogosphere takes such a backseat to the latest over-funded "me too" VC-backed... [Read More]

» "Enterprise 2.0" as the example that proves the rule from Enterprise Web 2.0
If you go to Wikipedia this afternoon and try to pull up the entry for Enterprise 2.0, you won't find it there any longer. Readers of this blog are familiar with my writings about this emerging concept in the IT and business space that has been topic ... [Read More]

» Why the Wikipedia Enterprise 2.0 Debate is Irrelevant from Zoli's Blog
The ongoing almost finished debate about the deleted[Read More]

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Scott Akenhead

I wonder how much money is being spent developing software and services that the investors happily think of as Enterprise 2.0? They have a clear enough idea of what that means to slap down serious money and a couple of years of their lives. Of course Enterprise 2.0 is a neologism, it is a new word, an emerging concept. What recourse do we all have for this attention-surplus-disorder editor costing the planet much lost productivity, by distracting so many people to take time out to piss on a pissant instead of getting on with Enterprise 2.0.

Dennis Howlett

Another thought - in the wider media, it's because consumer sells ads.

Jason Wood

Craig... I have been working collaboratively with many other enterprise-focused people on a proposed definition for Enterprise 2.0; but also agree that "2.0" may in fact undermine the value of what we're trying to focus on.

Leon...well said. Not sure there's an easy solution given the open nature of Wikipedia, but it's disappointing nonetheless.

James...you are correct, Wikipedia didn't delete the article, someone came along and did so individually. I'm really complaining at that person's decision; not the totality of Wikipedia. An important nuance to be sure.

eMBee...certainly you are correct that the individual who deleted Enterprise 2.0 did so because of the confluence of those factors, not any one individually. But please realize that the main construct of my argument didn't contend otherwise. Granted, I had a little fun with my "suggested deletions" but that was merely for a little ascerbic emphasis; not as a main talking point.

Dennis & Niel...good on you!

Craig

You make good points, and not to be a jerk, but I noticed that you hadn't contributed to the wikipedia definition of Enterprise 2.0, nor made any comments about the deletion there. Instead of flaming them, perhaps you just write up the def. yourself.

Based on what I saw there, it looks like they may be scoffing at any term with a "2.0" at the end; they may have a point, perhaps Enterprise 2.0 can re-emerge with a better moniker.

Leon Benjamin

Power over others exercised this way, is actually weakness disguised as strength.

"How is Wikipedia better for the deletion?"

It isn't. It's become weaker.

jr

Here's a copy of Wikipedia's Enterprise 2.0 article (minus the CSS) that I saved early in the morning (EDT) of August 14. The timestamp within this article is labeled as: 20060814052007. This saved page contains the statement indicating the article is marked for deletion.

Early on August 14 was the first time I accessed the Enterprise 2.0 article, and because it had the deletion notice, I saved it. I think later in the day of August 14 or maybe on the 15th, the page was removed from Wikipedia.

James Grimmelmann

Why do you say that "Wikipedia deleted" the article? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that someone deleted the article from Wikipedia Focusing on who did it calls attention to the process by which they did it, their reasons for doing it, whether the process or reasons were flawed, and what should be done. The contents of Wikipedia are just the sum total of the changes made by its users, after all.

eMBee

you are making a strange argument here.
unfortunately i can not read the original wikipedia article, is it archived somehwere?

the problem seems to be that the term "enterprise 2.0" is a neologism AND is disputed, AND it only differentiated from "web 2.0" by focusing on business.

"god", "the meaning of life", "new york stock exchange" and" capitalism" are neither a neologism, nor are they similar to something else. leaving "MySpace" and "Wikipedia" which are not disputed or similar to something else.

you see, the problem is here that for "enterprise 2.0" they are giving multiple reasons that make it unfit, not just one.

Niel Robertson

I agree with you, the NYSE has become way to "businessy" for me. I liked it when it was more "bubbly" - sort of like champagne. LOL. I am going to add "businessy" into wikipedia and see how long it takes to get deleted. Because lets not forget the huge attention to "Truthiness" that Wikipedia has served and benefited from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Ah the beauty of empowering people with no other outlet of power.

Dennis Howlett

We have an expression for people like that - actually 2:

Wankr
Tossr

I think you might have 'numbnuts' but I prefer Bob Sutton's: Asshole. :)

Jason Wood

Indeed Dennis!

Storming the gates of Dr. Frankenpedia. I would love for someone to give me a legit explanation for why they would delete that entry. Even if someone thought it was complete poppycock, as long as it was fraudulent or libelous, why would they care?

J

Dennis D. McDonald

What a rant! I say we ask Rod Boothby to create one of his patented drawings to show a mob (your list of "passionate" folks) approaching a dark and foreboding castle (labeled "Wikipedia") holding pitchforks and burning torches!

The comments to this entry are closed.