I was scrambling for a clean definition of Enterprise 2.0 yesterday and I was going to start with the one McAfee started on Wikipedia, but low and behold, the “thought police” (see excellent post by Dennis McDonald) had deleted the entry claiming it was “not notable.” I’m going to yield to the trail-blazers to resolve the definition-establishing process, but this brings up a more interesting conundrum. It appears, ironically, the Enterprise 2.0 camp have fallen victim to what those who are critical of it have been alleging– that there are gaping holes in an unstructured environment where there is no central command or authority to keep everyone on the same page. I’m simply pointing out the obvious, of course, (and I’d like to think I’m in this camp), but what will be interesting is to see how a genuine, grass roots, bottoms up effort moves forward to clearly establish itself as the technology continues to drive Enterprise behavior.
I’m going to keep thinking about this… It’s intellectually interesting…yes?
2 thoughts on “How much democracy is “too much?””
Thanks Dennis. Of course, everyone is weighing in on the Wikipedia debacle now. McAfee is PO’d, and Dion took the time to diplomatically analyze its import on his blog today. In theory, the “model” reminded me of when I was a child and my older brother taught me the fundamentals of boolean logic. Although the universe of all of us “ONs” were all for refining a definition of Enterprise 2.0, it only took one nebbish, self-righteous “OFF” to turn all of us “OFF”! I found that irony humorous considering the space itself was the very thing we were trying to define… I wish I were a cartoonist. 🙂
With all the buzz and pent-up VC interest in Enterprise 2.0… the ONs will rise again. ETA to a new Enterprise 2.0 definition? I give it a week– two, tops.
I’ve received back a message from one of the anonymous Wikipedia editors concerning deletion of the “Enterprise 2.0” article. There appear to be a defined (and somewhat elaborate) processes available to “appeal” deletion of an article, which appears to have been done by a single editor.
I’m not sure how far I want to push on this myself. If a single person can come in and unilaterally delete something from public view, allocating precious sales or consulting time to working to develop the article seems to be somewhat risky, no matter how valuable I think the outcome is.
Comments are closed.