Why Web2.0 Must Go

1. O’Reilly ought not profit as a result of this type of exploitative behavior, and
2. Whatever the present phenomena may be called, those responsible for making it a reality ought to share in the privilege of using the name.

Both these reasons make sense. O’Reilly, as the outfit credited with coining the term, must be held accountable for attempting to exploit those of us who have conceptualized and implemented the ideas to which the term ‘Web2.0′ has been attached. Additionally, the term ought to generically define the present phenomena and should therefore be freely usable.There is another powerful reason to now jettison ‘Web2.0′. By asserting proprietary rights in the term, O’Reilly has chosen exploitation as Web2.0’s defining trait. This cannot stand. We must reach consensus on a name that signifies a point of departure from ‘Web2.0′ and the idea of exploitation. The name must also indicate an ideal towards which we may strive, a standard by which we measure our progress in realizing a vision for the Web and for people in general.

Perhaps O’Reilly was blinded by greed and thereby failed to notice the trait that accurately defines the current state-of-affairs, Cooperation. In the spirit of cooperation, I suggest that we adopt the name Web2.U. By including a portion of the old term, one is easily able to distinguish the new name. At the same time, by incorporating the ideal that the web is fundamentally about each person who participates in its creation and use, we acknowledge the value of the individual. It is only in recognizing and valuing the individual, You, that the web will be transformed into a space that promotes the ideals of personal growth and cooperation. See Web2.U - A Standard for more.

To allay any concerns, I disclaim all right, title and interest in and to the word Web2.U as it may be used in association with any thing.

Summum Bonum.