Scott Rosenberg has a good roundup of the players, including Andrew Keen, Nicholas Carr, Michael Gorman of the ALA, and the Britannica folks. Rosenberg also repeats a common argument:
Regardless of how you feel about all these issues, it’s hard to miss one meta-elephant in the room: The members of this phalanx of Web 2.0 cynics have all chosen to deliver their critiques via the very form that their rhetoric detests. Keen promotes his book from his blog. Carr weaves his ideas on his blog. Gorman explains what’s wrong with the “Blog People,” where? On a blog hosted by Britannica.
What’s the thinking here: First join them, then beat them?
It's ironic, to be sure, but it doesn't necessarily detract from their arguments. (1) Keen and Carr have both published books -- they wouldn't be getting nearly as much attention if they were only blogging. (2) I don't think most of these critics are absolutely opposed to all amateurism on the web, but rather to the techno-enthusiast view that amateurism is all we need. We all start as amateurs, but it only gets you so far. The web's low entry price is a great thing and I doubt that most critics of web 2.0 would deny that.
Recent Comments