Bill Kerr has begun what I hope will be an ongoing critique of Web2 in the more thorough and thoughtful BK way. Unlike the rise of general and non specific criticisms of the idea of Web2 that seems to have been emboldened by Keen’s book and attention, Bill manages to articulate his critique without calling a class of people monkeys.
It’s better that everyone has their own interactive medium and chaos reigns, than the alternative of Big Media or traditional School alone. If we want radical change in the media and education then there is no alternative but to go through chaos. “Web 2.0” won’t change School dramatically if it doesn’t also change society dramatically.
Bill then goes on to peg expertise as the more important question facing Web2. Personally I’m not so sure. As Weinberger points out, there’s plenty of room in the read/write web for experts to flourish, arguing that the popularity of web2 makes it harder to find experts doesn’t fit. The mistake that the critics seem to be making is persistently seeing web2 as one massive thing. Its a bit like saying Youtube is hopeless because its full of teenagers exploding soda and bikini this bikini that… some people see value in that for many reasons, and who knows what expertise that might lead to. But even if Youtube seems to be flooded with silly stuff, that has no impact what so ever on my Youtube experience, simply because I’m not much of a browser of Youtube. Personally my Youtube experience has nothing to do with Youtube as a whole, my Youtube experience is made up of recommendations from experts I already trust.
I don’t know if my attempt to explain why thousands or millions doesn’t equal nothing, or even if Youtube was a good example, but its enough to say that Weinberger, no! Benkler is more of an expert than I am.. I’m just doing my bit at pointing him out and helping Google help those who remain blinded by the massiveness.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 30, 2007 at 2:11 am
Alan
Yeah. Hmmmm. I’d agree he writes his position in a compelling manner. but as you suggest, I am wary of painting such broad brush strokes on something as complex and organic-like as web-space.
I’d rather use my energy *doing* web2.0 / reading-writing web / monkey production than talking ’bout it.
August 1, 2007 at 10:45 am
Mike Caulfield
I think your point about links is right.
The real problem is money — there are certain endeavors which can emerge organically (wikipedia) and certain things that cannot. The History of Oil thing is a good example — Sherman (??) is able to do that because there’s a performance aspect to it where the Web 2.0 part (you putting this up) is a great offshoot. Same holds for music. So far so good.
(and I’m clearly cribbing off of Jon Udell here, bear with me)
But will we ever have a world again where beat reporters uncover corruption, etc, on stories that have an arc of weeks? [or, did we ever, I suppose..] — that takes too much time to do in your free time — and as craigslist sucks up the funds that used subsidize that, it looks like a fading option. The same with a number of other web 2.0 threatened industries.
My worry is that there are larger things that only larger orgs can do — and that they used to be subsidized by the smaller things larger orgs did — and now those things are gone — it’s a question of how we make it financially possible for people to conitnue doing those things.
Rambling….you’ll have to fogive me, I had a eportfolio webinar today, my brain is mush…
August 1, 2007 at 12:24 pm
leighblackall
Yep, that is the big issue hey.. it is one that Keen and Weinberger agreed was the biggy in their debate. But Weinberger reckons its too early to consider, that the disruption hasn’t set in enough.. I think we agree that the disruption has taken place, and now IS the time to consider this issue…
Personally, I could make something of a living out of performances that are promoted through this blog. Giving presentations, holding workshops, facilitating forums etc.. but it wouldn’t be enough to sustain me – but I’m not an A-lister.. I reckon the A-lister’s could. Downes (if he started charging for his services) could sustain a living I reckon, so could the others.. Will Richardson apparently is…
Do we really need the large orgs to produce the goods when the individual now has a wealth of information and resources at their fingertips? I’m not sure… it used to be that to run a TV journalism production needed a team of 5 or 10 with big money + research assistance etc.. now its a network of vloggers that empower individuals to do the same… I think…