So I really don't think of web 2.0 as a separate idea set apart from what was originally the world wide web. I very much think that humans like to catalog and identify what is different and what is the same about different objects. Quantifying the new social networking as 2.0 is disengenous because the internet has always been about sharing. Are we doing it in a new way? I don't really think so.
I remember when I was 16 and on a BBS (bulletin board system). This was when most people were still not on the internet and you had to dial in to other people's computers to receive information. It was very unregulated and wild west-ish. There were different forums on different topics and I ended up sending a few emails back and forth with Bruce Sterling. I didn't know who he was at the time, but I've later learned that he's a pretty famous author in his own right (and from Austin, where I lived at the time). A couple of years later I emailed Maureen F. McHugh and received a response back (You can tell I like science fiction).
I will say that, especially in the world of science fiction writers, the internet blogging culture has given rise to the "in" authors: Cory Doctorow, John Scalzi, Charles Stross. I read a blog post that said the only reason these guys are nominated this year is because they have a cult of personality that follows them. I tend to agree even though I enjoy all of their writings.
My boss asked me why I would want to do 23 things since I do know about technology. I have always learned new technologies ad hoc and I think this might be a good way to break the cycle.