Interesting to see that Wikipedia considers the neogeography entry to be a candidate for removal owing its potentially neologistic nature - despite use of the term dating back in one context or another to 1922 - not so neo after all!
Recently the term has founder common currency more as the rather more web 2.0 corollary to the implicit term of (generally rather gentle) upbraiding of those not aligned with its certain actually rather broad sensibility - the 'paleos' - in that 'if you're not with us...' etc.
I'm not going to endeavour to (re)define these terms or to broaden the scope out to include GIS or geoweb or cartography or spatial analysis or, remember this one, remote sensing. It's an irony of the internet's amateur publishing paradigm that the implicit polarisation of different schools that sustains the debate is on the one hand an illusion (in that most commentators are sufficiently familiar with the subject to recognise the shades of grey on the ground) while on the other a meritricious tool in leveraging a given perspective. You would have to be from a flat earth not to recognise the sometimes less than nuanced devices lobbed onto this field of play.
Coming over all pacifist (again!) the 'problem' with all this navel gazing and grandstanding is that the real opportunity continues to pass by on the other side, tired and neglectful of the squabbling and desirous of someone who speaks their language to solve their problems. And we know this too!
On these terms perhaps Wikipedia is correct and geography (cf Michael Goodchild) is eating itself?
Concorde 214 G-BOAG, Seattle,USA
4 days ago