There has been a great deal of fuss among bloggers lately regarding the verisimilitude of the term “Web 2.0”.

What’s all the fuss about?

Web 2.0 is just a buzzword – an (imperfect) encapsulation. Think World Wide Web! Convergence! Downsizing! You know the drill…you take a complex idea (Web 2.0) and tenderize it for the third estate. Eventually the public grasp the concept – or tire of it – and the word goes the way of the dinosaur. Who says world wide web these days?

Whatever it once was, “Web 2.0” is now a marketing soundbite that helps mass media chew with its mouth open. The ideas that “2.0” husbands may, in hindsight, turn out to be either facile or revolutionary.

(shrug)

The general, non-Technorati public doesn’t really care. The basics are enough for them – and they, not the hipsters, will be gassing up the 2.0-mobile. So while blog cognoscenti debate each other and offer re-interpretations (live web, dynamic web), Joe Dell gets a whiff of what Web 2.0 is and moves on with his day. That whiff may both inform and mislead him. Big deal. There’s little harm and much to gain. Chances are good that Joe will mostly “get” what 2.0 means, that he’ll be less afraid of it, and that his participation will help it spread.

Put another way, Web 2.0 as a definition is as tidy as suggesting that the term ‘baroque’ describes all things 18th century.

I know what baroque means, though perhaps not at an ‘Antiques Roadshow’ level. Nonetheless, I could take an artifact from the period and say why it deserves the label.

My muddy effort would likely horrify an art historian—to the point where she’d throw her cats at me. But the point isn’t that I’m an expert, it’s that behind my limited understanding lies utility and appreciation.

By arguing about a concept that is no longer meant for us, we are in danger of treating “Web 2.0” as a vestal virgin. It isn’t. It was once an idea and an ideal, yes.

It has since become a fuzzy, ersatz buzzword. A cardboard sign. Oatmeal.

So why don’t we all buzz off and focus on something else?

I’ll go first.