@ringlerun integrity in the context of “enteprise 2.0″ is worth considering. I believe integrity in our work and lives is something we should all aspire to; how it plays out in a collaborative framework and social networks is something I need to think about and research. To have integrity as the backbone of an idea, from conception through to development and further through the market lifecycle is an ideal sceanario. Still, the work of a rogue maverick can uncover exciting new functionality never intended for the original purpose of an idea or product. Breaking the machine to fix it, if you know what I mean. Perhaps I need another post…

i personally think that the integrity of the person building the idea is paramount to it succeeding in a good way. dubbya could tell me all he wanted about world peace, but how much impact would it really have based on the heart motivation of the person giving (and to quite an extent, receiving) the idea.

I’m not quite sure which direction this conversation is going (and it could go down several paths of discussion.) I hear your point about abuse of a technical term for personal benefit, I believe you are concerned with the integrity of an idea. I also think, as Ric has pointed out (hi Ric!) that reworking, or even putting some gloss on these ideas can still lead to great things (despite any ego involvement, intended or not) as the cycle of development and innovation continues.

Imagine this, an idea (any idea), seeded by an individual with high integrity, is hijacked and exploited by others for different purposes and sold to the masses who want the shiny thing. Is the shiny thing more valuable or less valuable than the original embryonic idea? Perhaps, all in the eye of the beholder

lemme guess… you are a solopsist right? in any case, this is only your imagination speaking… as everything is just in the eye of the beholder (tounge in cheek of course, but that’s just part of your imagination again

the meaning of words and bits and pieces do change over time, what “offends my sensibility” is the use of currently popular buzz words to gain some “market share” for your own brand (in this case, Andrew McAfee is his own brand). the term is currently *mostly* being used (and by used, i actually mean abused) by the latecomers wanting a slice of the bandwagon… they are manipulating the situation rather than coming up with real stuff…

On the “Enterprise 2.0″ - just because O’Reilly used the ‘2.0′ suffix in retrospect doesn’t mean we CAN’T use it aspirationally, particularly in the enterprise. We can hope/work toward/evangelise that our workplace take a similar journey to that already taken by web denizens, as described by O’Reilly.

As for whether or not Andrew McAfee is ‘full of himself’ I can’t say … “fullness”, as is beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, I guess

Andrew seemed a bit too full of himself to me… this whole 2.0 fad is something that really bugs me - and he was the epitome of it yesterday - as he himself claims to have created the term “enterprise 2.0″. Tim (O’reilly) very clearly wrote that his use of the terms web 2.0 is not an aspiration, not a reference to how things might evolve in the future, but how things changed from the past to the present. He distances himself from the term web 3.0 very much, claiming its all marketing guff and hype.

The way i see the term 2.0 being used - when not used in a way that was originally intentioned, all i can see is marketing fuffy duffy’s using it as a term of future evolution - eg. enterprise 2.0! not a retrospective look at how things have come to the current point - but an aspirational look at how things could be - or should get to! the whole 2.0 thing is used by daffy ducks to hook in managers that want to be “part of the fad” and “not miss the boat”! - whereas web 2.0 was never ever about a boat going towards a destination - but about a concept that had already evolved!

I guess the one thing i have to come to terms with is that when “real innovators” come up with new things (eg. Tim with the use of the term web 2.0), if what they come up with gains traction - goofy ganders like Andrew will try to capitalise on other people’s hard work by firstly, misunderstanding and misrepresenting the original idea, and then coming up with fluff on the basis of the real term, and marketing it.

In terms of what Andrew was actually saying… i think the content of it was relatively good… but the “who” as well as the “what” and “how” are very important to me… as an analogy, if dinner at a restaurant came presented on dirty plates, i’d be a little suss!