June 28th, 2007
Skeptical reader: Andrew Keen's big ideas
On the last afternoon of the Supernova Conference, David Weinberger and fellow ZD Net blogger Andrew Keen, debated the question, “Disorder: Feature or Bug?” Unfortunately, they didn’t actually manage to demonstrate a definitive answer to that question, because all we learned was that they disagreed. Chris Heuer took notes.
Keen, the author of The Cult of the Amateur, chose to deride everyone associated with Web 2.0 as wide-eyed Utopians and, particularly, assumed anyone The first principle borne out by the debate last Friday: Skepticism is essential with a question during the session was a kind of idiot pandering to the new order. In a post-session interview, he said people who disagree with him seek him out “because they always are looking for the anti-Christ.” With all due respect, Andrew, you are hardly in that class of evil or intellectual, unless you think Simon Cowell is the most diabolical man on television. And, in that case, you are as guilty of soft-headedness as the people you criticize.
Weinberger, co-author of The Cluetrain Manifesto and author of the recently released Everything Is Miscellaneous, allowed himself to be painted in the role of utopian, failing to deflect Keen’s characterizations of him as open to any idea with an uncritical acceptance that is apparently the signature of Web 2.0. Keen repeatedly contrasted himself with Weinberger, portraying his ideas as mission of the skeptic defending modernity against a horde of self-indulgent loudmouths.
The skeptic/Utopian dichotomy was the opening Weinberger should have exploited to undermine Keen’s argument, because Weinberger himself is an accomplished skeptic. He has a Ph.D., one of the few things, besides a published book, that Keen acknowledged confers authority on a person. There would have been much more to talk about that afternoon, if the audience had been granted access to a real debate rather than authors, particularly Keen, who are chasing controversy in order to sell books.
So, why this late posting on a week-old subject? Because, for the most part, I agree with Keen’s concerns without assigning the fault for the problems in a more egalitarian society to the rise of participation by the masses. There are plenty of examples on Wikipedia, for instance, of incorrect information outshouting the correct and verified truth, largely because some people believe they should challenge any authority. I have been a frequent critic of the intellectual laxity that is called Web 2.0, a marketing term that has run roughshod over the need for skeptical inquiry into its founding principles. And it took a few days to get hold of and read his book, in order to frame a response that adds to the discussion.
Keen wants to preserve a range of authorities from the 20th century—book publishers, television networks and movie studios—simply because they created the talent he sampled as a boy, learning from the experience what to value. He also seems extremely impressed with the mechanisms of 20th century media, especially the ability to market titles, which is typical of a first-time author who wants to believe that being published is a sign of distinction. It is only to the degree that
Next –>
Mitch Ratcliffe is a veteran journalist, media executive and entrepreneur. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
Subscribe to Rational Rants via Email alerts or RSS.
