The word "Enterprise"...the Rodney Dangerfield of the new media

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 consumer startup that's got about as much chance of generating a positive IRR as I do of winning the New York marathon?

Look, we know our place...we get that for every blogger who likes to talk about enterprise software, global outsourcing, corporate governance and the like, there are roughly 8.3 million blogs ready to dissect the latest YouTube clone, or calendaring tool, or best garage band on MySpace.

But today when I read that Wikipedia deleted the term "Enterprise 2.0", I nearly lost my mind. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales describes Wikipedia as:

• ..."an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."

OK, a bold doctrine to be sure, and one whereby you could see Wales making the argument that some things are worthy of deletion (under the "highest possible quality" argument). So maybe there was a good reason for the term Enterprise 2.0 to be deleted? Here is the explanation from the editor:

Enterprise 2.0

Neologism of dubious utility. I can find examples of it's use online but there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what it means other than "sort of like Web2.0, but businessy" Artw 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the main issues are:

1. It's a neologism
2. It has "dubious utility" with no consensus of meaning
3. It's sort of like Web2.0 but "businessy"

Where should I begin?

• Neologism, by definition, is a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") — often to apply to new concepts, or to reshape older terms in newer language form. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old idea which have taken on a new cultural context.

• "Dubious Utility"...can the editor who deleted Enterprise 2.0 articulate the utility of the term Web 2.0? What's the consensus definition of Web 2.0, I ask? Yet, it's not deigned worthy of deletion, far from it. That term has been viciously debated, defended, assaulted and dissected and yet, it's become one of undeniable presence; so much so that Tim O'Reilly actually service marked the term.

• For someone who's assailing the validity of a neologism, does anyone else find it downright ridiculous that he used the term "businessy?" in defense of the deletion? "Businessy?!?!?"...if that half-cocked neologism isn't a clear indication of just how out of focus the editor is with the business world, I don't know what more needs to be said.

I know there's been a fair amount of debate lately regarding Wikipedia and the editing policies; and up to now I've stayed out of the fray because, frankly, I didn't care all that much. But this one has hit close to home. As much as so many bloggers feel they are part of Web 2.0 in some small way, I am most certainly part of Enterprise 2.0 in my own way; as are most of my fellow Irregulars and other business-focused bloggers.

Where's the logic in this deletion? Clearly, there are people passionate about the concept:

• Thomas Otter
• Andrew McAfee
• Dennis McDonald
• Jeff Nolan
• Mike Stopforth
• Ismael Ghalimi
• Jerry Bowles
• Ross Mayfield
• Deepak Alur
• Rod Boothby
• Charlie Wood
• Peter Rip
• Vinnie Mirchandani
• Zoli Erdos

...and thousands more; but you get the picture. Truthfully, if Wikipedia is REALLY about being the ultimate reference source for every human being on the Earth, it shouldn't matter if ONE or ONE BILLION people care about the term "Enterprise 2.0." But when you realize that it's a term at the epicenter of a lot of creative thought and debate, I'm incensed that someone so UNFOCUSED on the business world would simply delete the entry. How is Wikipedia better for the deletion?

On another note, what's done is done. But in the interest of fairness, here are a few items in Wikipedia that need to be deleted as they violate the same criteria that "Enterprise 2.0" fell victim to:

• God [Reason: No consensus]
• The Meaning of Life [Reason: No consensus]
• MySpace [Reason: Neologism]
• Wikipedia [Reason: Neologism]
• New York Stock Exchange [Reason: Too "Businessy"]
• Capitalism [Reason: Too "Businessy"]

enterprise2.0 rant idiocy irregulars wikipedia deletion neologism andrewmcaphee woodrow

Comments

[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!

[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 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. :)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[Dennis Howlett]

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

[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.