I don't think I'd describe Hinchcliffe's essay as monstrous. It is a long post...but perhaps valleywag was referring to some of the rather odd notions (well, odd to me, at the moment, in that they're so vague or open as to be unhelpful), like "Web 2.0 is made of people." One commenter also found this vague: 'You know, "made of people" is not a defining expression. Crowds, armies and cannibals' dinners can be "defined" exactly like that.'
But there is expansion on this squishyness.
"Key Aspects of Web 2.0
-The Web and all its connected devices as one global platform of reusable services and data
-Data consumption and remixing from all sources, particularly user generated data
-Continuous and seamless update of software and data, often very rapidly
-Rich and interactive user interfaces
-Architecture of participation that encourages user contribution"
OK, that's a bit more helpful.
Read the whole essay as well as the comments. And Hinchcliffe has a blogroll for lots of Web 2.0 blogs (left-hand side). Comments range from "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WEB 2.0!!" to "Thank you for providing some semi-structured analysis around this technological and sociological phenomenon."