Is community participation bad?


Here are some interesting opinions. I've always understood the appreciation for the web as new and powerful means of enabling otherwise impossible communication. But this Andrew Keen character seems to believe that if everyone is allowed to participate, we all lose. He's also wonderfully arrogant.


I have had some rather idiotic discussions with this guy on some different mailing lists.

His trick is to carefully, but hyerbolically and exagerratedly criticize emerging internet and information technology, then hope that others will wretch and blog about him, which he hopes will translate into book sales.

But he has very little actual substance to his arguments, philosophically, theoretically, or otherwise.

Really interesting video to watch. There are definitely some good points made on both sides of the argument and more than a few times I wish the speakers could have been allowed to talk longer.

I don't know which side I'm on, and think its too soon to guess how the whole "web 2.0 thing" will play out.

Andrew Keen was definitely a very pompous a speaker/presenter. But some of his interviews were more palatable and interesting - sadly more so than O'Rielly. I'd even like to agree with Keen that as a result of Web 2.0 there's a LOT of nonsense/gargabe (aka noise) on the web as a result of collaboration - which will eventually lead to the expertise being valued.

I just suspect there's too many people too lazy to appreciate the value of truth (aka expertise). Perhaps the same reason misinformation and spam mail work so well in elections -> people don't even know they're "being had."

Thanks for the post to the video!

- Mike Stewart

I personally am of the school of thought that the more people who participate the more we can all get from the discussion. tea party ideas