This is what 2.0 means.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to This is what 2.0 means.

  1. Douglas Karr says:

    Brilliant! Quite possibly the best explanation I’ve ever seen!

  2. Bradjward says:

    That is pretty awesome. Thanks for sharing.

  3. Michael Sauers says:

    Pure genius. I reach Web 2.0 and Social Web applications to librarians around the world. Barring your not wanting me to I’m definitely going to use this in my presentations. Proper credit will be given of course.

  4. Mykl Roventine says:

    Yes. That’s it! You have such a great knack for hitting these things so perfectly.

  5. anmol says:

    now that simply explains what clout means….

  6. Chandoo says:

    very simple yet quite effective.

    You have a knack for simplifying things that are difficult to express. Love indexed.. :)

  7. Amanda Chapel says:

    Do you also believe in the a tooth fairy?

  8. Chris says:

    Sorry, but I think the tooth fairy didn’t make it into 2.0. Look for an update in the next few months.

  9. Cheryl says:

    I’m clearly not smart enough for this site but I keep reading!

  10. Annie says:

    Good for you, Cheryl. One will click for you and these will become easier for you.
    Additionally, I am intrigued by your perspective. This is the only “blog to check out” listed on my blog And I email your blog address to all my intelligent, logic oriented, humor enthusiast, and mathematical friends. Read your new posts every day. Thanks!!

  11. Amanda Chapel says:

    For the record, the more people you know doesn’t mean shit. Volume does NOT equal value. If anything, quite the opposite. The more you got means the more you’ve got to maintain and the less resources there are for any node on the system. The reason why social media is so poor is because so many have bought into the notion that high school vanity means opportunity. It doesn’t.

  12. Freiddie says:

    And so this is why I get Facebook App invites… :P

  13. Anonymous says:

    Jessica, what you’ve drawn, perhaps unknowingly, is a simplified version of what economists call “network effects” or “network externalities,” the concept of which was first brought up about 100 years ago. The curve has actually been shown to be exponential (more upward curving than what you have).

  14. James Burnes says:

    Love this. I’m actually blogging a response with a revised graphic based on your ingenious observation.

  15. at says:

    Thank you. This is true in every aspect.

  16. jon burg says:

    Jessica, I agree with the overall principle, however, I would hesitate to suggest that there is a direct correlation between the number of contacts one has and the value of their network. Value is about more than quantity, it’s about aggregate quality.

    Link to my response below, looking forward to your feedback –

  17. Raison d'être says:

    oh i so love this blog….. :-)

  18. tudza says:

    I think this graph was true way before 2.0 or 1.0 or even the decimal system. We used to call it the Old Boy Network.

    If 2.0 = Facebook, MySpace and their ilk, I totally disagree. These all seem very poor tools for getting anything done.

  19. therapydoc says:

    Yeah, it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

  20. metakappa says:

    And here is the dark side of social networking they usually hide from you:

  21. John Haydon says:


    I’d like to use this Index card for a future post of mine regarding how Non-Profits use social networking tools. I’ll ping you back.


    P.S. I love your Indexed Book.

  22. Stilgherrian says:

    Maybe the Y axis should be labelled “Things you THINK you can do”. ;)

  23. Lee says:

    OMG that is awesome.

    Ironically I discovered this via Twitter!!


  24. BOYerchen says:

    Awesome. I discovered this via the delicious front page. Congratulations! (;

  25. Tony Searl says:

    Luceat Lux Vestra Jessica
    Is content King? You betcha.
    You clever bricolager, you.

  26. Keck says:

    I think this should almost be on log paper :) The ‘things you can do’ axis should increase wayyy faster than linear with ‘people you know’ :)

  27. eigenvector says:

    Does the vertical axis stop at the Dunbar Number?

  28. Brad Gulliford says:

    Where’s the z axis: time you can spend on each new incompatible system demanding your attention, to wade through hundreds of inconsequential posts. We all know there’s more volume out there (whether it’s books or networking contacts or wiki comments); we also have known for years that librarians’ job is no longer increasing access, it’s filtering and navigating. Preferably not by adding an additional service to have to visit in the multiple stops we expect users to go through to get one item of information. I’m not pooh-poohing, just stating the challenge. :-{)} Okay, you got my 30 seconds. Bye.

  29. Paul Massey says:

    Following Brad’s comment – a “things you do do” axis would be interesting.

  30. Katie Harris says:

    You’ve captured it PERFECTLY. Thank you!


  31. ian says:

    I agree with this, but would add a second a picture. The horizontal axis would “people you follow” and vertical axis would be “your free time”. The result would be line looking a bit like the stock markets now – straight down!

  32. Chris says:

    so sayeth the extrovert

  33. Pingback: Remixing what web 2.0 implies

  34. Pingback: Clarity and your Social Media Team. | GAby Menta

  35. Pingback: Social Media *IS* Public Relations «

  36. Pingback: Social Media *IS* Public Relations «

  37. Steve Davies says:

    Excellent. I’m dealing with a bunch of luddites and this will do the trick nicely.

    Well worth pinching. With acknowledgment of course.

  38. Chris says:

    I saw a management book on the shelf of the Value Village that was full of these sorts of graphs, and I remembered your blog…It’s been many moons since I’ve read your insights.

  39. Kelcy says:

    Nice diagram but some wishful thinking in it or perhaps not enough dimensions. It is possible to know a lot of people and still not be able to achieve as much as you hope. Another problem that this doesn’t address is sustaining what is done. It is possible to know a lot of people and initiate a progressive change. And then months/years later, key people in the network move on and the initiative is cancelled or slowly dies from lack of interest (or lack of funding/management support). Some of that may have to do with a change initiative started before the workforce and management was truly ready (perhaps too early in the innovation/adoption cycle). Some of it may have more to do with the deeply entrenched hierarchical culture/bureaucracy of government agencies that reward current behavior and therefore see little reason or incentive for making changes.

  40. Brian says:

    Interesting…one little tweak – change “people” to “smart people”

  41. Pingback: The power of connections – why adding friends makes sense | Second Opinion

  42. Pingback: Harold Jarche » Frictionless learning