Last weekend’s New York Times SunÂday MagÂaÂzine has declared this the Amateur’s Hour, an era when unpaid hobÂbyÂists can edit breakÂing news, design space techÂnolÂoÂgy for NASA, and preÂdict the end of the world. That last artiÂcle is clearÂly an outÂlier, but the first two raise an interÂestÂing point—are we getÂting betÂter serÂvice from processÂes like Wikipedia than we did from traÂdiÂtionÂal, top-down hierÂarÂchies?
This is a debate that’s been going on for the past couÂple of years under the guise of Web 2.0, culÂmiÂnatÂing in the “You” econÂoÂmy announced with much fanÂfare by Time MagÂaÂzine last DecemÂber. In that debate, the batÂtle lines are clearÂly drawn between the YouTube-using, Google Map-mashÂing enthuÂsiÂasts and the skepÂtics, like aJaron Lanier, who preÂdicts a form of DigÂiÂtal MaoÂism. In that verÂsion of the arguÂment, blogÂgers are either citÂiÂzen jourÂnalÂists or incomÂpeÂtent muckÂrakÂers clogÂging the pores of the body politic.
Now the debate seems to have moved into a wider circle—the realm of the amaÂteur verÂsus the proÂfesÂsionÂal, with or withÂout the interÂnet. Major outÂfits from NetÂflix to NASA have been tryÂing to outÂsource some of their trickÂiÂest probÂlems to the genÂerÂal pubÂlic, which is as bizarre as it is excitÂing. Andrew Keen, arguably the most Web 2.0‑enabled critÂic of Web 2.0, is well-placed to comÂbat the Times covÂerÂage with his new book, The Cult of the AmaÂteur: How Today’s InterÂnet is Killing our CulÂture, which he describes as a polemic against all of the monÂkeys with typeÂwritÂers and webÂcams (that is, us) the InterÂnet has now unleashed upon civÂiÂlizaÂtion.
PerÂsonÂalÂly, I find it hard to believe that “real culÂture” is drownÂing in a
Keen’s self-proÂmoÂtionÂal enerÂgy is an excelÂlent examÂple of how techÂnolÂoÂgy can enhance the great conÂverÂsaÂtion. He’s arguÂing his case everyÂwhere from Google’s HQ (watch here on YouTube) to the Strand BookÂstore in