Bill Kerr perplexes me. A voice in a growing chorus of non specific Web2 in education criticism, his post Don’t be too proud of Web2 has me a little confused. On the one hand he is calling for deeper thought, but on the other is reluctant to model it in this brief critique and uses the throw away language that he holds others to task for. In his observations of the web2 movement being a bit full of itself:

Global village idiocy, like the uncritical promotion by some of conspiracy theories of history on the TALO list

And that’s why I’m writing up Bill’s post. He’s talking about me there. Me and a couple of others in TALO that found Zeitgeist to be a film worth considering. Bill came in on that TALO thread and dismissed the film as conspiracy theory and reckoning that the US leaders are not that organised and that history is not that simple, but he didn’t try to back that up and has only watched half the movie selectively…

I’m not defending the movie, I still have little idea if the claims in the movie are true or not, that doesn’t matter to me as much as Bill’s all over dismissiveness. Its not village idiocy to want to discuss the film. Surviving the deflation of Bill’s mere conspiracy theory, the counter was to talk about the film in terms of it being a device for motivating inquiry learning or encouraging questioning generally. I’ve started a wikieducator page around the movie for just that very purpose. If Bill’s not energised enough by the movie to start looking into its claims, then maybe the global village will have a go.. Off list Sean and I had a go at the Wikipedia bureaucrats who deleted the movie’s article, which is one of many many topics that can spin out of Zeitgeist discussions…

I find it perplexing that of the hundred or more claims in the movie, and the thousands of details behind Web2 really, that Bill is calling others proud fools… and being dismissive without being specific. Bill?

Advertisements