But, still, I would have liked to hear at least one person say, “When we started to think about implementing Enterprise 2.0, we talked with [our] people who had been working with knowledge management over the past 10 years, and were able to bootstrap our activities more effectively because of what they had learned.”

I think you are making an important distinction that perhaps didn’t come through in my post. I agree that most nonprofits don’t run as (or perhaps qualify as) “enterprises” because they do not perhaps have very large numbers of employees, siloed organizational divisions, and so on. I was thinking more of intentional networks, which may be either as you suggest the “capital ‘N’ Networks” or emergent.

Creating and leading these networks is always going to require balancing the internal/external and the formal/emergent network styles.

I would add that in E2.0, people are not only looking at networks from an external perspective but from an inward perspective. In other words, how can organizations act more like emergent rather than rigid networks?

This is less of a theme in the nonprofit world, probably because there are far fewer large nonprofits. I think the nonprofits that would benefit most from this frame are the formal, capital “N” Networks, which ironically act far more like organizations than like flexible, emergent networks.