Myths and Misconceptions of Technology

Oh well, now here’s the rage going down on Andrew Keen from the anonymous blogheads from across the swamp of evil in the form of a narcissist hydra he set off to decapitate. I swear not to be single-sided in my selection, but that’s just what it is so far:

Here is a book review, here’s an opinion about professionalism and gatekeepers (by the way, I never was aware that people depend so much on movie reviews, which says a lot of the “democracy” created by mainstream media and the media literacy of its audience) and here is something about journalism. Markos Z?niga claims Keen has got it completely wrong with his research concerning the credentials of the creator of dailykos.com.

Update:

Now wait, here is one in favor of Keen though it is not exactly clear why, but let a sublime like-minded spirit convince you about the sorrow he feels for a loss of intellectual edge that comes with the Internet. And here is another book review from one of his hailed gatekeepers, very British indeed.

And finally, here is what David Weinberger and Clay Shirky say.

Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur, has been repeatedly criticized for his fervent stance against the consequences of Web 2.0 as he perceives them. Much of the criticism turns against his apparently unbalanced arguments and inconsistent examples, which mistakes most of the apparent objectives of the book. As Keen explains himself the book is “unashamedly biased” and you have to take it from there. His admittedly subjective view is that of a flat Anglican parish in a loophole of time. There is no real cultural, social, economic or historic relevance there. He takes a snapshot of his personal status quo and defies any change. All this gets him enough media (mainstream and other) attention that he can easily shrug off any criticism.

Royalty not quality

Assuming these premises of good old marketing mechanisms one can find some valuable points in Keen’s musings. However, anybody who is not flat out to embrace Web 2.0 no matter what and is concerned about the downsides may regret that there is no solid argumentative basis in the book. More regrettably still, this attitude undermines one of the major issues concerning quality of published content. But then again, would Keen go more for the subtlety and balance he might not be as ubiquitous in the media as he currently is and we all know the squitty arse never lacks for shit…

Oh boy, so much fuzz about the term and the underlying concepts that it is hard to get ground under the feet in the swell of arguments going back and forth.
Here is one view from Hal Varian, which is - small wonder - pro. Indeed he is right when he says that IT has allowed users access to data in a way that was not thought possible or affordable not so long ago. What he doesn’t say is that mom’s and pop’s data are just crumbs from the Google data monopoly pie.

Here’s another opinion that runs more in the vein of Andrew Keen, famed for The Cult of the Amateur. Although slightly more balanced the interest is clear in this case, too.

Any preliminary conclusion is that we have entered the age of random proliferation of data and what we need more than ever are sharp senses for the cui bono and sound judgement. So what’s new?

What exactly is Web 2.0? Is it the interactive Internet with user-generated content? Is it a never-ending source of priceless personal data promising so immense profits that it has become the battleground of the likes of Google, Microsoft and Rupert Murdoch? Is it the final undermining and democratization of the information monopolies? Is it the next giant bubble to burst?

We all know that Web 2.0 was just a random tag and lacks a proper definition and if it had a valid one any marketing hack would still promise you to deliver just the Web 2.0 you want even if it were far off the shot. And as Peter Fingar has pointed out there is a lot of similar and even more fatuous tagging going on. And while it is obvious that blogs and Wikis are fancy tools they do indeed create an information overload and have therefore little value for business.

But witty as Fingar’s remarks are, the offered solutions seem to be like jumping a bandwagon that has gained substantial momentum. What people really need is not ever more refined processes but more control over how they organize their work. They need no control from IT, they just need advice.

So Web 2.0 is surely not a remedy to all problems businesses face in organizing collaborative work and it is not the continuation of KM with proper tools. It is, however, a fascinating experiment and if someone can make money out of it, why not. But please leave the tagging to those specialized platforms.

peter fingar