Mike Stopforth

I marvel at this web thing. I just discovered while browsing through TechMeme that Dan Farber is the latest blogger to comment on the deletion of the Enterprise 2.0 Wikipedia article I put up a week or two ago.

Now I’ve had my rant on the subject. I’m just keen to trace the events that have led to a mini storm in a teacup and ironically enough, more publicity for the term Enterprise 2.0 than I’d ever hoped for or imagined.

I first read the phrase at Rod Boothby’s Innovation Creators blog. Rod has unpacked some of the potential benefits of Enterprise 2.0 from a knowledge management perspective and it is a very handy resource. Rod’s posts pointed me to Andrew McAfee’s Enterprise 2.0 Article in the Sloan Management Review. I promptly paid for the resource and downloaded it. Realising quickly that much of what was being expressed as Enterprise 2.0 in the blogosphere rung true with my message to South African corporations (only I had no fancy phrase that embodied it), I decided to set up a Wikipedia article to use primarily as an aggregation and clarification tool for the differing opinions and definitions floating about.

To cut a long story short, the article was shut down becuse the phrase Enterprise 2.0 was dubbed a “neologism of dubious utility” by the Wikipedian editor. Ross Mayfield and Dennis McDonald fought the cause, where I stepped back because I realised I had maybe not followed the correct ‘Wikipedian procedure’ in building and submitting the article. Andrew McAfee was divided on whether he should contribute or not but I don’t think he ever got the chance regardless of what he decided.

Subsequent to the shutdown there has been a pretty overwhelming response from the blogosphere. Here are some of the highlights:

Andrew McAfee’s response:

Either those of us who think about this concept have failed to get over the very low hurdle of the minimum criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, or there’s been a bit of a breakdown here. I’m strongly inclined to give both Wikipedia and the concept of Enterprise 2.0 the doubt. I suspect that the deletion decision, which had a unilateral and non-transparent feel to it, is just the result of a Wikipedian with an atypical view of his or her role and powers.

Jason Woodrow’s rant-of-note:

Truthfully, if Wikipedia is REALLY about being the ultimate reference source for every human being on the Earth, it shouldn’t matter if ONE or ONE BILLION people care about the term “Enterprise 2.0.” But when you realize that it’s a term at the epicenter of a lot of creative thought and debate, I’m incensed that someone so UNFOCUSED on the business world would simply delete the entry. How is Wikipedia better for the deletion?

Dion Hinchcliffe’s thoughts:

My point here however is not to go into the details of how and why this term is effectively censored by Wikipedia, at least for the moment; folks like Jason Wood and Jerry Bowles have already done a creditable job. However, the deletion of the entry does highlight a critical issue with the use of Web 2.0 tools in the enterprise space (aka Enterprise 2.0):

If anyone in an enterprise can generate content visible and consumable by the rest of the enterprise, can it be policed in a constructive way without discouraging its very creation?

Jerry Bowles also had a go:

Here’s mine. Wikipedia is one of those great ideas that began small with high hopes of inclusiveness and democracy and lots of grassroots enthusiasm for liberating knowledge from the gatekeepers and then grew into the same tight-assed establishment monster that it intended to supplant. The desire to control is simple human nature and gatekeepers are the inevitable consequence. Wikipedia is now too big and too successful to take a chance on new ideas. Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.

So where does all this leave us? As with Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 has as many definitions as people who use the phrase. It is no one thing - rather it is a collective noun for ’stuff that could be and most likely is related’. But it is a big thing, and therefore hard to quantify. In that sense, our Wikipedian friend was right. But I never built the Wikipedia article to declare with 100% certainty what I believed Enterprise 2.0 to be, assuming the rest of the world would agree. I put out what it means for me, hoping the community who cares about it would rally around defining the concept more clearly. I’ve learnt Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of collaboration to happen.

You can see the restored version of the article here, in Ross Mayfield’s talk section.

To read my thinking on Enterprise 2.0 - NOTE: What it means for ME - go here. It is a work in progress so your comments and criticisms are welcome.