It doesn't take long for one to see the dichotomy between these two. Like most topics one can see the extremes on both sides of the issue. I generally like to look at the extremes on any topic and then seek to find balance somewhere in the middle. That is not to say "straight" down the middle, maybe that is not even possible, but rather average out somewhere in the middle. Therefore, when looking at the views of Shirky and Keen, there are areas where I lean one way and areas where I lean the other. However, I lean more towards Shirky as a proponent of using the technologies that Shirky seems to be for and Keen is adamantly against.
I will not spent time rehashing Shirky's views as we all just read his book and have blogged and discussed it. However, it is clear that Shirky covers the positive aspect of evolving technologies and the exciting new ways that they are being used in society. Shirky even seems to make a concerted effort to dispel the concerns about gatekeepers of information and the possible extinction of traditional sources for information. He feels that society will police the information and maybe it will result in more gatekeepers that will ensure even more that the correct information can be obtained.
Conversely, Keen sounds the alarms...The Internet is EVIL! Run for your lives! The monkeys are taking over! No more experts and cultural gatekeepers! Keen says, "the mainstream media is being replaced by a personalized one...rather than seeking the news we BECOME the news, information, and culture." (p. 7). So he seems to think that the gatekeepers are being overtaken and the gate is wide open for people to share and broadcast themselves and their views. Now the monkeys are "authoring the future" (p. 9). and are making it up with no policing, guidance, or wisdom. No professional editors providing evaluation of material and content, just "amateurs gone wild" or in some cases elaborate conspiracies by special interest groups creating their own view of the truth. So that "one person's truth becomes as a "true" as anyone else's." (p. 17). Will today's "Y" generation be able to discern what is good and reliable information? I can understand some of his points and for example agree that some of YouTube is worthless. However, as with anything else, are we going to only focus on potential negatives and do away with something that can also be used for good? An all or nothing approach? People have car wrecks and get killed, therefore cars are evil...therefore, do not get into a car! To me his overall logic is quite flawed, even though he makes some good points and certainly establishes some things to consider.
Well, I decided that I would beat Lila to posting a video from YouTube about Keen. It is an hour long and apparently from a book tour in 2007 for his book (the cult of the amateur) that we are reading. Interestingly, it is presented by "Authors @ Google"...maybe they didn't read the parts where he was bashing Google. I also wanted to post it because he seems to really hate YouTube and I find it interesting that he is now there! so Google presents him, he is on YouTube, and I have blogged about him...I feel like a monkey...okay maybe not!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYou are certainly right about the dichotomy. I started with the Keen book before class even began. I was steaming reading that book. Just about everything I like about the net he mentioned as a negative. I made myself go through the whole book.
My first negative was his lack of footnoting. I am always irritated by little sourcing. Secondly, as you note, he is an extreme alarmist. Now, if you are truly alarmed this might be ok. I'm not sure that his alarms are as based in truth though as he lets on. Now, I constantly reminded myself though that this guy was an insider.
The only problem is that his theories seem weak to me. He constantly alludes to the cult of amateurs and I remember in my mind the cult of experts I've been subjected to for all of my life. Keen seems very concerned about pirating, about copyright loss, about loss of huge sums of money, about inaccurate information, about gatekeeping and filtering and he sees experts as a solution of sorts.
I, OTOH, remember the plagarists at the NY Times, all of the recent scandals among "journalists" both in plagiarising and making up whole books as "truth" and first-person accounts. There have been a plethora of examples of this happening by the "experts" in recent years.
So, what is so reliable about the experts or their information, I ask?
Now, I do have to say that I think he has some points regarding Wikipedia that are glossed over by Shirky. I know of at least one person, myself who was slandered more than once in Wikipedia. I do see in Wikipedia areas that are highly inaccurate in Science and I don't see the cream rising to the top in those areas. What seems to happen is that might makes right or that whoever runs Wikipedia has, ultimately the last word in touchy areas, thus, they become the ultimate "god".
However, Keen's solutions are very thin. I checked some of the websites he mentioned at the end of his book and frankly I didn't see much there.
Also, if Keen is truly concerned about "downloads" there are whole countries (which I won't mention) that have dwarfed America in pirating of software, etc. that were not even mentioned in his book and that are coddled by Google, MS, Yahoo, etc. that probably ought to be mentioned at least by those companies.
Also, I don't have it at my fingertips but I am more of the opinion that copyright, licensing, and other regulations often have been used to repress dissension by groups that threaten governments and/or corporations. Even the marriage license was developed by the Church of England as a method to disperse sects through the bastardization of children not in the church or of unlicensed marriages.
Well said! Great comments! I find his continuous references to the professional journalists and news media laughable. For example, on page 48 Keen states, "The most accurate and objective reports came from professional news reporters..." and there are numerous other times he pushes this notion that the traditional news media is objective and unbiased. Yeah...right...and what planet did he say he had been on? Many times it is the amateur bloggers that Keen despises that expose the propaganda and bias in the traditional news media.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason I am reminded of "Good Morning Vietnam" when the AP news feeds are coming in and they have the "expert news professionals" (twin guys) who are trained and educated to sort through the news and disseminate the “true news.” Then the scene comes when the AP story comes through with the so called accurate and objective version of the restaurant bombing that Adrian Cronauer was personally involved in. Adrian gets furious because he knows it is BS because he was there. Many times the amateur bloggers blog because they witnessed what happened and are setting the record straight as opposed to what is being reported.
However, Keen wants to filter and sensor this type of information and allow some communistic controlled media that tells us the version that they (e.g. government) wants us to hear. I would rather take my chances with free access to ALL of the information and sort through and form my own opinion.
Link to scene of first time on air scene that shows the AP feed and the “protectors os accurate and unbiased news” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GMUYy3wmIA