OK, Scott my dear, you've thrown down the gauntlet. So I, sat down this afternoon and read the Andrew Keen article in Associations Now.
And it turns out, I can call everybody's bluff.
You, Sir Briscoe, are stirring the pot. Those quotes you pulled out of Mr Keen's article? Totally designed to get a rise out of me/us bloggers/us techies/whoever. But, funnily enough, while they do appear in his article, they are not actually his point at all. And, I was amazed to discover, he's not anti Web 2.0 either! Despite appearances. And while, before I read the article, I thought it was genius to include a seemingly anti-Web 2.0 cover article in the "social media" issue, I have now come to realize you are pretty damn smart. You made us all THINK there was this big debate to be had. And we're all going to grab our issues of the magazine and read the article, all prepared to be pissed off (like I said I thought I would be). Smart move!
Because in actual fact, I would argue Mr Keen is not only NOT anti Web 2.0, he's actually one step ahead of some of us in terms of seeing where the future lies.
Let me explain. Here's Keen's REAL point: "Ironically, the answer is not to defend one's fort but to use Web 2.0's digital tools to rebuild that fort in order to make ourselves more secure against the ill informed and opinionated." And, "There remains a strong public preference for credible expertise over flatulent option. The wisdom of the crowd is that the crowd isn't particularly wise." I totally agree, hence my previous comment about "better stuff rising to the top". And the clincher:
"Rather than amateurs and amateurism, the digital future may actually belong to experts and expertise."
What is he talking about? He's talking about Web 3.0. Yes, already, and he's not the only one. Just one recent example: this Washington Post article I read recently about a magazine abstract website, brijit.com, ends with this:
"The Web is moving toward the combination of human reviewers with Internet search. WebMD founder Jeff Arnold has said that if the latest evolution of the Internet, Web 2.0, was about the consumer -- meaning user-generated sites such as MySpace, Facebook and YouTube -- then Web 3.0 will be about the editor."
So - what to make of that. As we all know, associations tend to be behind the business world in embracing new technologies. So what we need to do, then, is hurry the [bleep] up, so we can get to Web 3.0, which is where we actually want to be. And in that pursuit, well, Mr Keen and I are absolutely on the same train. : )
11.16.2007
On Keen (reply to Acronym)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Genius"
ReplyDelete"Pretty damn smart"
Oh, please go on...
Ok, so I'm not sure any of that is true, more like magazine editors having a little fun.
I'm glad you liked the article; I did, too.
Reading his piece, though, did make me think of a debate that does need to be had, or rather one that should be ongoing with associations. When you think of Web 2.0 in the context of decentralized association content, that's where the Keen article becomes less of a rah, rah to association expertise, and could question the experience of some web 2.0 apps.
For example, associations are traditionally a gatekeeper of info -- stuff that comes from the association is implicitly stamped with "this is good information."
When it gets decentralized, and the association is more of a hub or connector that enables others -- any members or groups or whoever -- to create content, then where's the expertise?
I think association relevance in the future rests on how we somehow reconcile the old centralized practice with its implicit legitimacy with the notion that if creators can't create through your hub but without central interference, they'll do so elsewhere.
(And Maddie -- cutting through all the social media stuff -- what about the power of the contrarian view? Any comment on that? I have a couple of friends who are of opposite political views than me, and I'd much rather sit at a bar with them knocking down a couple of brews and debating policy than friends who are just going to trip on themselves agreeing with each other.)
Maddie - Here is my 2 cents:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogclump.blogspot.com/2007/11/reaction-to-keen-article.html