I'm with you on the "2.0" label, and I'm sure there will be a backlash soon. But it's better than "collaborative computing" or some other dry, clinical-sounding moniker. What's important is the notion of ethos that "2.0" tries to capture. The audience is the speaker and the audience determines the credibility of speaker. In Motorola's case, knowledge-workers use the IT tools to create the knowledge transfer systems, and they determine each other's credibility. That flips the top-down, corporate IT model on its head. Maybe instead of 2.0 we could call it democracy. Lynda Radosevich