Well, yeah, it was a stretch and I'm not a skilled enough writer to make this point in the way I'd intended. But I don't see the same contradiction that you do -- jargon doesn't help *everyone* communicate more efficiently, only the people who have a shared understanding about the ideas encapsulated in the word or phrase. The fact that some of what Web 2.0 means is still not well-defined doesn't change that.

And I didn't elevate it to "professional jargon" -- I referred to it as "domain-specific jargon" that is "used to communicate more efficiently and interestingly with others who share a similar level of knowledge and skills in a specific area." To me, "professional" is simply one subset of "insider" jargon, which is why I included jargon from sports and hobbies. That's a key distinction, so if misled you or other readers into thinking that all jargon is implicitly 'professional', then... my bad.

I acknowledge that at least one big difference/problem with "Web 2.0", though, is that those who first began using it (like Tim) DID intend for others to understand it more clearly. It certainly fails there, big time. But as I said, even if it's meaningless to a huge chunk of people, that still doesn't make it meaningless to all. I disagree with you that people are *guaranteed to have a miscommunication* when using it. A decent chance, maybe, but not a guarantee.

On another point... it's not every day that I cause someone to "question the entire human race." Either I have a lot more power than I ever dreamed, or you're being a bit of a drama queen with that one. (You may have taken my *personal blog* more seriously than others do.) Most of my regular readers already know that I'm more than willing to risk saying things that (often) turn out to be total crap. But... it's criticism like yours that help me learn to improve, especially in areas where some of my regular readers wouldn't call me out, so... thank-you.

Dare,
I thought the post was very strong. I think that you read it wrong... I think she meant something more social in nature around user behavior. Jargon is not a positive thing when not in the proper context.

Dare, I agree with you completely. I, too, was really surprised to see Kathy defending "Web 2.0" as jargon. Her response here questions your statement that the term will guarantee miscommunication, which may be fair.

To look at it another way, what is the value communicated by the term "Web 2.0" when exchanged by two people knowledgeable in the field? The value is minimal, but I guess there's something there. If someone says a site should be made more Web 2.0, you know they're suggesting one or more of a dozen or so concepts. There is some information in there.

It's a funny perversion of jargon. Jargon is usually opaque to the layperson, but very specifically meaningful to the insider. In this case, the jargon is only correctly nebulous to the insider, while the layperson may mistakenly associate a concrete definition with it.

Anthony: "In this case, the jargon is only correctly nebulous to the insider, while the layperson may mistakenly associate a concrete definition with it."

I can't disagree with that. And certainly Web 2.0 is one of the best (worst) examples of this. I didn't say there weren't big, big problems with it. But...it does mean something useful and real to *some* people, and that makes it a form of "insider" jargon, even if way too many people use it incorrectly, or worse-- as a buzzword.

Dare, I actually never called it "professional" jargon. I said "domain-specific", which is a key distinction. Sports, hobby, and professional are all subsets of specialized jargon. And you're mischaracterizing when you say, "...calling an obviously empty buzzword like Web 2.0 'jargon' due to the fact that it has pervaded our industry." That's not at all what I said (or meant). The industry is full of buzzwords I'm not about to promote to jargon status. I called it jargon because there are people for whom that single phrase is meaningful and useful.

If it were "obviously empty", well, we wouldn't be having this conversation since nobody would be using it. So I can speculate that by "obvious", you might mean "obvious to thinking people." I can live with that, in my case it might be true -- but I'm pretty sure Tim and Dale think quite a lot... and not just on clever ways to perpetrate marketing hoaxes.

It is a judgement call and a semantic debate, so I don't agree with Dare's absolutism. But still I think the weakness in Kathy's position is that even if smart people coined the phrase and continue to use it, the real deciding factor is how it got spun by the industry at large. This substance hit the fan and it blew out, like um, have you seen a hippo lay waste?

I feel the same way about the term XML in some respects -- that it began losing its meaning almost immediately due to the hype, and now the backlash is as a result of so many bad bloated things getting associated part and parcel with XML.