I am with the dancing mango. The thing is: describing something as Web 2.0 doesn’t make it so. It lessens rather than adds credibility to point to a company as a 2.0 case study, if the evidence isn’t there? Does Barclays.com change based on user behaviours? Where is the community area? No architecture of participation I can see. Perhaps I am missing something.
Just a thought from the Cisco European Analyst Event, where Barclays was cited as a Web 2.0 case study.
disclosure: Cisco is a client
