I just about puked after reading an article on Associated Content today. It was titled “An Interview with Andrew Keen, Author of The Cult of the Amateur” and it spoke of the inaccuracy of information that is present on the web today due to amateurs (like you and I) blogging and participating in social media networks like MySpace.
I’ll begin with two somewhat positive points:
1. This guy is obviously leveraging the power of controversy and it looks like he’s doing a good job of that, so for that I commend him.
2. It is true that there is an over abundance of bad information floating around the web, but without “amateur media” the only information we would have is from .org, .edu and .gov sites. True, there is some good info on these more professional sites, but I wonder how many times Andrew Keen has learned something from the “amateur sites” he’s visited!
One comment really got me:
…Amateurs can’t write whatever they want – especially on topics like Iraq – because their facts, expertise and judgment are suspect…
hmm I’ve written several articles on Iraq. I’ve also BEEN THERE!!! I wonder if he has? I have much more knowledge of Iraq than anyone who has never been there. I was there for a year fighting a war, one that I don’t agree with, but I’ve been there. Is my expertise suspect? I don’t think so!
The fact is, the WWW wouldn’t be anything without amateur media. Without us amateurs, people like Andrew Keen would have a much harder time marketing marketing their books and getting their opinion to the masses.
Without amateurs like you and I the WWW would be full of “book answers” and it would lack real world advice.
Of course we should consider the source when searching online. We should always remember the fact that not everything on the web is factual, but is the abundance of “amateur media” really destroying culture? I don’t think so, do you?