Just to stick with the relevant topic of the week - Paul Boutin wrote a colum yesterday covering his personal opinion of Web 2.0 now that, according to him, Newsweek has used the phrase without quotes for the first time in mainstream media.

Beyond that, publicists and self-promoters invoke Web 2.0 whenever they want to tag something as new, cool, and undiscovered—"This could be a big story for you, Paul!" That kind of hucksterism is what sends editors reaching for their red pens. Prior to Newsweek's feature, the term "Web 2.0" only appeared in national publications wrapped in protective quote marks or cordoned off behind phrases like "what some in Silicon Valley are calling." Before Newsweek released the word, Kong-like, from its restraining quotes, they braced readers with a long disclaimer: "The generic term for this movement, especially among the hundreds of new companies jamming the waiting rooms of venture-capital offices, is Web 2.0, but that's misleading. …"

He makes the nearly salient point that rather than calling the movement "Web 2.0", we should simply explain exactly what we mean by that phrase in each instance:

Still, the purpose of words is to convey meaning. Calling Technorati a "Web 2.0 search engine" sounds sharp but explains nothing. If you can only describe a word by examples, skip to the examples instead: "It's a search engine for blogs that uses tags, like Flickr." There's an easy way to describe today's online culture of participation without invoking Web 2.0 at all. Just call it the Internet. That way, everyone will know what you mean.

My problem with that reasoning is that taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that other phrases and terms that require web literacy must also be stripped away. SEOs can no longer call Google's "sandbox" a "sandbox" but must instead explain that the search engine has a widespread aging delay penalty system for newer sites that carries a myriad of qualities including X, Y and Z. We wouldn't be able to say AJAX, but must instead explain that a technology exists which combines the functionality of Javascript and XML to allow the Internet to be used in a similar manner to a desktop operating system - performing functions on the fly without refreshing a page.

As a personal timesaver, I'd rather just use the term itself and let the world catch on. Eventually, every new word or phrase will carry meaning. Just because you don't like how it sounds or what it is doesn't mean you can decide to ignore its existence and say it's without meaning. Yes - "web 2.0" is not an ideal term for the meaning and yes, it's certain to arouse in many folks a dire need to call you a "wanker" and proclaim that you've ignorantly succumbed to marketing hype. But it's much easier than trying to explain an entire phenomenon using examples and long paragraphs, especially when the person you're talking to will just say "oh, you mean Web 2.0?"

I'll take Danny's much more logical rant about Web 2.0 over Paul's.