Wow... you really have NO IDEA what postmodernism is, do you? How can a phenomenon emerging from Semoitics and structuralist literary analysis of the 1950s, which came to be labeled as post modern in the 1970s because it followed the modernist art & architecture movements, which culminated in "the international style" (read huge sqaure skyscrapers), possibly be associated with eugenics and the atom bomb (both of which can be charachterised - if you draw a long bow - as modernist totalising ideas)? Do your homework.

|<

I study economics and philosophy -- Skinner, I think you are really doing a hodge-podge blend in this article.

Diminishing returns don't seem too applicable with your argument.

I like your ideas. I'd love to seem them much more fleshed out in a three piece essay.

1)Enlightment v. Postmodernism
2)Web 1.0 v. Web 2.0
3)Web 2.0 Benefits v. Web 2.0 inherent destructiveness( or whatever your conclusion wants to be...)

Many have been talking about a recent issue of the McKinsey Quarterly that speaks of what they call "Tacit Interactions". When people consider Enterprise 2.0 / Web 2.0 / Office 2.0 tools such as blogs and wikis, they need to consider these tools in the context of these tacit interactions. Tacit being ad hoc or on the fly and this represents 40% of a typical business day time according to McKinsey.

Many have been talking about a recent issue of the McKinsey Quarterly that speaks of what they call "Tacit Interactions". When people consider Enterprise 2.0 / Web 2.0 / Office 2.0 tools such as blogs and wikis, they need to consider these tools in the context of these tacit interactions. Tacit being ad hoc or on the fly and this represents 40% of a typical business day time according to McKinsey.

Personally I don't think we are coming to an end of web 2.0. I rather believe we are going to live in a world where old and new will be living next to each other and people choose from both models the one they consider most appropriate in a given situation.

Yesterday I finished raeding 'Ambient Findability', a thin but well illustrated O'Reilly volume about the importance of findability in the coming world of ubiquitous computing (or 'ubicomp' as it is referred to throughout the book).

The book does explain a lot of 'Web 2.0' jargon - I now know what a 'folksonomy' (the popularly authored taxonomy of the internet generated by such things as Technorati tags) and the 'semantic web' (cannot be botherd to explain that one) are. It also made me think about the limitations of a Google-search driven world of information.