Spanning the divide.
Clay Shirky, on Corante's
Many to Many blog, reports on another debate with Keen, a debate at which
Shirky was offered an opportunity to rebut him. Shirky perhaps surprises when
he writes that he found quite a bit in Keen's arguments with which he could agree.
He adds:
The hard question contained in Cult of the Amateur is “What are we going to do about the negative effects of freedom?” Our side has generally advocated having as few limits as possible (when we even admit that there are downsides), but we’ve been short on particular cases.
This is a different approach than simply scoffing at the traditionalists who automatically
assume that encyclopedias should "naturally" be written by authorities.
Shirky is aware of the almost tangible threats that much of the internet (and
especially Web 2.0 tools) can present to traditional institutions, but rather
than gleefully laughing as the old guard slips on a banana peel and can't get
up, he find dangers lurking for those who cast those peels onto the ground as
well.
Lawrence Lessing
takes a somewhat different approach to closing the gap between the traditionalist
point of view that Keen represents, and the Web 2.0 evangelists. He simply claims
Keen as one of "our" own:
And then it hit me: Keen is our generation’s greatest
self-parodist. His book is not a criticism of the Internet. Like the article
in Nature
comparing Wikipedia and Britannica, the real argument of Keen’s book
is that traditional media and publishing is just as bad as the worst of the
Internet. Here’s a book — Keen’s — that has passed through all the rigor of
modern American publishing, yet which is perhaps as reliable as your average
blog post: No doubt interesting, sometimes well written, lots of times ridiculously
over the top — but also riddled with errors. Keen’s obvious point is to show
those with a blind faith in the traditional system that it can be just as bad
as the worst of the Internet.
Lessing essentially offers us two posts in one in his critique of Keen. The second,
in depth, post examines numerous specific claims that Keen makes, while the first
essentially says "this guy can't be serious". But instead of stopping
there, he asks - if he's not serious, then what? His conclusion is certainly a
novel one.
Go to: To somebody it matters, or
Go to: Going way back, or
Go to: Just who do you think you are?