and a self-proclaimed polemicist when it comes to Web 2.0.Andrew Keen's basic message is that we need paid professionals to provide us with culture - which he defines as TV, music, books, newspapers and magazines. The internet messes that up with a bunch of amateurs providing us with lots of choices besides the ideal culture we would get from paid professionals.
He has gotten some internet/digital/technological types quite upset.
I don't think the printed word, music, or knowledge in general, is endangered by the development of the internet - with one important proviso - everyone needs to have an education.
Not an internet-based education or a college-based technical, scientific or engineering education, but a good old fashioned liberal arts type of education that teaches us - how to learn, to be thoughtful and informed citizens, how to differentiate fact from opinion, to question and understand the source of information, some of the biases that may be in play, different philosophies, religions, arts and basic civility/manners.
As long as we have that educational background we don't have to worry that technology (Wikipedia for example) will destroy our ability to continue to evolve as human beings. A good education teaches us to be smart consumers of culture/media and Wikipedia will find it's proper place in the hierarchy of resources available. I'm being a bit elitist here and worry that Andrew Keen may have some points that make sense if we consider people other than those who enjoy the benefits of a good education (who by my definition understand the importance of books, alternate points of view, teachers, professionals). I can temper that elitist statement by saying I don't believe a good education necessarily is, or has to be, provided by a college or university - considering one of my favorite thinkers - the self-educated longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer.
The internet is similar to TV, magazines or newspapers. You have material for people who like to think (Nova/Time/New York Times) and those who don't (Fox News/People/National Enquirer). I don't see this as a problem - and hope everyone has the opportunity to get a good education so they can choose to think when they want to and goof off when they don't.
I find myself agreeing with some of what Andrew Keen has to say in the archives of his blog The Great Seduction, and in the discussion with Kevin Kelly - particularly the misguided notion that we have some absolute right to anonymity when we interact with others in the public sphere. I'm all for people using real names when they communicate with others whether it be by telephone, internet, written word or in person. That seems like basic good manners but it goes beyond that when people become amateur - book reviewers, encyclopedia writers, doctors or lawyers on the internet.
There are other issues with anonymity that range from the annoying - spam, insults/flaming on comments, to the dangerous if we consider the hazards that may lie online for unsupervised or uninformed young people.
We all have a right to privacy but that is not at all the same as saying we have a right to be anonymous. We trade our anonymity in order to be able to participate in certain activities (flying on commercial airplanes or driving a car for example). The question then becomes how much anonymity is the right amount for a netizen in this digital age.
