Names are strange things. You don’t always need to be able to define what a thing is to know it when you see it, but having a name for it helps you talk about it. That’s what happened with Web 2.0. We know what the 2.0 implies: change, development, progress, advancement. And we know how some people interpret 2.0 when smooshed together with the word Web: strong social components to web services and applications, agile development and the everlasting beta, networks of friends and co-workers, aqua-effect fills, rounded corners, and names with the letter E missing.

Once O’Reilly had kicked it off, the ‘2.0’ trend rapidly expanded, to Journalism 2.0, Marketing 2.0, Business 2.0, Office 2.0. You name it, it has a Version 2.0.

Even Media. Which makes sense, when you think about it. We’ve already had New Media, but it’s clear that New Media isn’t keeping up with the incredibly rapid development of the web and Web 2.0. New Media is antiquated, obsolete. Any business that pats itself on the back because they have some sort Head of New Media needs a kick up the butt and a lesson in Media 2.0.

So when Chris Saad invited Kevin and me to join his Media 2.0 Workgroup, we thought it sounded like an interesting opportunity to help give Media the kick it needs to get it moving in the right direction.

Chris doesn’t quite put it like that though. He says:

Media 2.0 is a term used to describe the emerging social media industry. Every community needs some help to grow. The long tail has a head, and conversation needs a topic. So in this spirit, we have gathered a group of people who are passionate about the issues of Media 2.0 to help propel and focus the conversation.

The Media 2.0 Workgroup is a combined feed (or OPML of feeds if you prefer) that we’ll be sharing with luminaries such as Ben Metcalfe, Jeff Pulver, Ian Forrester and Jeneane Sessum amongst many others. So go on, get it in yer aggregator!

Technorati Tags: media 2.0