Okay, there is a lot of contention around the use of a term like “Web 2.0” and yeah, to a great degree, I agree, it’s a bit “markety”; then again, I work for a company that has to make money (or my job and lots of others go away) and I understand the need for marketing. In short, arguing whether this is the right term or not, admirable or sleazy, is something I’m just not all that interested in.What I am interested in is the characterizations in the first two “phases” of the web and I thought Tim did that nicely in What is Web 2.0?. (Sure these “phases” have vague boundaries and they overlap, but as a simple frame of reference in which to cast these ideas it’s fine.) I won’t recap all of the attributes Tim listed in each of these phases, only draw out my favorite one in the latter – that of user participation. I loved his example of Amazon beating out Barnes & Nobel (at least in part) because the information they provide to the buyer includes content provided by their very users. That is, they don’t try to control all of the content that is presented. I don’t think that this point can be over emphasized and it is not just a technology decision. We don’t simply add a discussion thread (somewhere) and achieve user participation. This has to be a philosophy, a paradigm that we follow, even in the technology we create. I can tell you that it is one that has and will continue influencing what I do in my day job.