There is an interesting discussion going on about whether we need a new term for blogs in order to “sell” them to non-believers. I think the main problem is not that the word has too bad connotations but that it has yet too many meanings and has not yet sufficiently differentiated into narrower hyponyms. Too many different things are labeled with the young emergent word, and there are always some of them that frighten some of the non-believers.
Moreover, I don’t think we should try to “sell” blogs or other Web 2.0 instruments to everybody. The diversification of personal information and knowledge tools has faster advanced than the diversification of the corresponding terms; blogs are definitely a matter of preferences and style, and they do not suit everybody. Therefore, rather than selling them, it should suffice to allow for them, to give leeway to the individuals who find them suitable, and a climate of tolerance towards cognitive styles that are opposite to one’s own style. For many of such “free range” knowledge workers, there will be some subtypes of blogs that benefit the enterprise. And in such a climate of tolerant plurality, also the other, skeptically rated, shades of blogs and social software will be welcomed as an enrichment of the ecosystem rather than be feared and prohibited.