I randomly came across this image the other day on Digg.com (sorry, I have no idea who the author is otherwise I'd give credit where credit is due).  While at first I laughed, I had to pause and wonder...  Is Web 2.0 the "dumbed down" version of how the web started out?  If so, is that a good thing (i.e., "dumbed down" means "simple," "accessible" and inherently "social")?  Or is this a bad thing (i.e., shorter attention spans, shallow connections, less knowledge sharing, etc...)?

Further, what does this mean for those of us in market research?  Coming from the qualitative side of things, I know that qual researchers strive for articulate, thoughtful responses to their questions (especially in the online asynchronous setting).  While "top of mind" is great in certain settings and for certain studies (e.g., concept tests), an in-depth response takes the cake in most studies (particularly when clients are watching :-)

If we're forced to analyze meaning in 140 characters or less, are we better or worse off?  If we get a 160 character text message from a participant "in the wild," is this information going to be useful for us, or just leave us wanting more? 

There are probably a number of ways to think about this (and maybe I'm overthinking it as it is), but where are we heading as researchers (and participants) in the Web 2.0 world?  If it's this "dumbed down" now, where will we be a few years from now?