I was going to post some comments on your social web business post but didn’t. so i’ll jump in here.

as to Enterprise 2.0, i’m very involved in this. the term was created by someone I know well and i am actually the person who setup the blog that he talks about it on.

http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/

(so now you all know where i work)

there are very good reasons to keep the separate names and i do think Government 2.0 is a fine thing to use.

i’ll just now list the first one. try telling a CIO he needs a blog.

their first comment will be. my child has a blog, why do i need one. its for kids.

a corporate worker treats information very differently than a person who is publishing his own personal ideas. in a corp, information is power. similar to a government, but i expect they also have different issues, especially when sharing information between different groups within the same governmental organization (ye old turf wars).

as for the government, here’s a background article on the CIA. they have put quite a bunch of work into this area lately.

http://www.bluedamage.com/2007/10/12/cia-goes-web-20/

note, the CIA has a large private equity group that invests in cutting edge technology startups.

Socialtext, one of the leading wiki vendors, was heavily invested by the CIA for their startup.

Let me also drop down a url about an interesting thing that happened. there was a battle on wikipedia about if Enterprise 2.0 was a valid term given that Web 2.0 already exists.

http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/faculty_amcafee_v3/entry/help_help_were_being_repressed/

you will find other entries on the blog about what happened. HBS actually created a case about the whole situation. as a demonstration on how a discussion that normally would have been between a small group of insiders, but instead became a discussion by anyone on the Internet that wanted to participate (which of course is exactly what Web 2.0 is about).

i have not read the articles you linked to here but i will later and might have more comments.

the challenge with new technologies (which is what i’ve been working in my whole life) is getting them into old organizations.

as you know most people don’t like change. and the problem with new technologies is that many (if not most) fail.

anyone remember the followup to SNA, called APPN? Great technology, with multiple faults and no one wanted to try it out (no one ever got fired for buying IBM… unless they used APPN).

but now, the same concept is the basis for what we are on right now.

thanks,
sds

(ps. thanks for posting stuff like this. hope you stay in government, the world needs people like you)