I just noticed that I have reached the 1000 post mark. Time to do something special.
Here is a summer rerun. A reminder from post #1 – June, 2002.
The Beginning
iv. to teach them this techne, should they desire to learn [it], without fee and written covenant, and to give a share both of rules and of lectures, and of all the rest of learning, to my sons and to the [sons]of him who has taught me and to the pupils who have both make a written contract and sworn by a medical convention but by no other. (from the Hippocratic oath – translated)
I have to make one more comment about this book and then I will give it up.
I have been listening to Friedman’s “The World is Flat” (again) for the past few days. Today, the topic happened to be open source software. In attempting to provide both pros and cons, Friedman describes a discussion with a Microsoft executive. In attempting to argue that open source development can be detrimental to the industry, the executive suggested that open source developers recreate what already exists, but do not put time into research and development required to move the industry forward. This argument also is advanced in the “Cult of the Amateur” .
When I read, I am immediately taken in by the author’s arguments. When I read multiple books on similar topics, I can feel like I am being bounced about like a ping pong ball. Most often, this is because competing positions end up focused on different strengths and weaknesses. It is not about being right or wrong. So, open source (amateur programmers, authors, etc.) projects tend to recycle work already done and in the process take revenue away from the individuals and companies generating the original products. When money gets tight, R&D is one of the first things to go.
First, do I believe this position is true. Do bloggers mostly comment about the work of commercial sources? I suppose – I am commenting about the work of two book authors. Of course, I would guess my comments would increase rather than decrease someone else’s willingness to buy these books. I have hardly provided enough information to replace a reading of the original sources. I suppose Open Office is a reworking and for some a replacement of Word. Is Linux a reworking of Windows? Apache may be the best example ending up as a replacement for several commercial server packages.
I think there are examples that work in the opposite direction. Mosaic (and then Netscape) were imitated by Microsoft in creating IE.
Are companies interested in innovation? I think companies are interested in innovation to the extent that innovation provides a competitive advantage. What bothers me more and more is that there seems to be less and less competition and fewer and fewer “players”. There are fewer textbook companies, companies developing computer operating systems, independent newspapers, major Internet destinations, etc. Companies drive out or assimilate the competition. It is difficult to accept that this is for the benefit of the consumer. Open source developers offer one source of competition.
If the options are open source approaches reducing revenue for developers and a limited number of dominant corporations minimizing competition and controlling the market, I think I come down on the side of open source.
One final point. I don’t see big companies as the only source of innovation. Researchers (and students) in colleges and universities contribute in a cost effective fashion to innovation. Mosaic and Google search came out of higher education and not corporate culture. University-based researchers have a different set of incentives than industry-supported researchers (when these organizations maintain independence) and this is a productive hedge for society.
Aha – I finally found a post related to Keen’s book – Weblogg-Ed – read some of the comments.
A few days ago, after reading the first half of Andrew Keen’s “The Cult of the Amateur” I wrote a post predicting that some of the high profile educational bloggers pushing web 2.0 applications would acknowledge this book and offer a refutation. So far my prediction has failed to materialize.
I do hope this book receives attention within the educational technology community. I am not endorsing all of the ideas, nor do I regard this as a scholarly treatment of the subject, but I do think many of the ideas expressed in this book need to be openly stated so that the issues can be debated.
The core themes of this book are interrelated. One of the core themes laments the decline in financial incentives assuring quality information and entertainment sources. A second core theme concerns the nature of expertise, and our appreciation of expertise and what it takes to develop and sustain expert sources. A third theme concerns the shoddy practices of those involved in the participatory web. Factors related to these themes include:
Factor 1 – redirection of revenue sources funding the production of quality resources. For example, options for online ads (free alternatives to classified ads and other ways of offering ads from companies to consumers) have taken away a fundamental source of revenue.
Factor 2 – tolerance for secondary source and amateur opinion in place of original work and expert opinion.
Factor 3 – acceptance of outright theft of the intellectual proporty of others.
Why any of this matters?
In the long run, we have access to information and cultural works of poor quality because there is little incentive to offer quality resources
We accept plagiarism and theft as acceptable behaviors.
We accept the opinions of those we agree with rather than challenge ourselves to process thoughtful analysis offered by objective experts.
What is the relevance to education?
Education is highly dependent on quality resources.
Education plays a pivotal role in developing values and responsible behavior.
Education plays an important role in developing information literacy.
Educators may use many of the resources and experiences Keen argues may be problematic.
Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture. Doubleday: New York.
I watch Twins baseball a lot and as a by product I have become interested in the on-air antics of broadcasters Dick Bremer and Bert Blyleven. One of the more entertaining multi-game stories from last year was the end of the year “call contest”. Making a “call” is a big deal. It is essentially confidently predicting a fairly low probability event and is usually done at a time when the home team needs a lift. A home run during any given at-bat is a low probability event. A double-play is a fairly low probability event. The mystique of being able to “make a call” supports the assumed special skills and the great “baseball minds” of the broadcasters.
Toward the end of the last season, the commentators decided to engage in a contest to compare their abilities to make a call. If I remember the details, the event was to run over 7 games and each broadcaster was to make one call a game (this also seems to be one of the unwritten rules of making a call – you make one call a game). The winner was to be the individual who make the most successful calls. Again, if I remember correctly, Burt got out to an early lead. Dick then began to make calls that pushed the boundaries. The nature of these calls and the use of this strategy after Burt had already made an unsuccessful call really seemed to create some hard feelings. Predicting that Johan Santana will strike someone out in the next two innings (I made this one up) is not exactly within the spirit of making a call. Towards the end, the broadcasters were appealing to boys in the truck to determine what constituted a valid call.
I have no idea why I thought of that story, but here is a call.
Within the next two weeks, those of you who follow educational blogs will confront and be bothered by the analysis contained in a book by Andrew Keen (The Cult of the Amateur).
The book laments the general decline brought on by Web 2.0:
“… democratization, despite its lofty idealization, is undermining truth, souring civic discourse, and belittling expertise, experience, and talent.” (p. 15).
The focus is on the evils of blogs, wikipedia, iTunes, Digg, etc. It is about our willingness to settle for what is free and mediocre. It is about how we are being duped by our idealism. It is about our failure to understand that our online selections and off-line buying habits are removing the financial support for expertise and careful production of information resources and redirecting these resources to “providers” (Google, etc., I guess).
I have to consider more carefully what I think of the arguments in this book. I promise more on this topic within a few days.
I just wanted to register my “call”.
The thing about monkey? It is a reference to Huxley’s comment about enough monkeys, enough typewriters, etc.
One final comment. I was curious enough to check whether Andrew Keen had a blog. It is just the way my mind works. Sure enough – The Great Seduction.
If you have a sense of history related to the personal computer or are interested in how some of the leaders of the field imagine the future, you will likely find an hour and one-half interview with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates of value (search iTunes podcasts for Steve Jobs and Bill Gates at D5). The participants work hard to dispel the common notion that they are constantly at odds. There is not a great deal of content concerning educational issues, but there is some.
A new search engine – mahalo – has recently launched. The idea is to use guides (people) to identify the most useful sites.
The guides will attempt to locate:
1. … sites that are considered authorities in their field (i.e. Edmunds for autos, Engadget for consumer electronics, and the New York Times for news).
2. … sites which create original, high-quality content on a consistent basis.
3. … sites that have been operating for over one year. Sites under a year will be considered, but most will be placed in a “member-submitted” section at the bottom of the page until they hit the one-year mark.
4. … sites that have clean layout, design, and a modest amount of advertising.
If you feel worthy, you can submit your site for consideration.
I learned that “mahalo” is the Hawaiian word for thank-you on a recent trip. Not sure what the connection is here unless we are to be thankful that someone has eliminated unwanted “hits” from our searches.
Hasn’t this been tried a few times before and evidently without sufficient success to compete with Google? I get the idea, but I bet most people search for too many personal topics for an “expert-selected” approach to work on an everyday basis. For general topics when expertise/quality is an issue, the page rank system that considers the popularity of links to a site already considers the collective decisions of many web page authors. Why would a group of selected “guides” offer an advantage?
This sounds like a test of the collective intelligence vs. expert distinction that was at the core of “The Wisdom of Crowds”. I guess I think it is a good idea that new approaches are continually offered up.
Deja vu! I do not purchase access to many online services, but when I do, it seems that the service is then made available for free. Back in the day, if you wanted to include images in your blogger account, you had to pay a fee for Blogger Pro. I did this and then Blogger decided to allow anyone to include images in blog posts. I paid for a service to “time shift” online radio content (radiotime). That service also went free, but dropped service for the Mac.
Today I receive an email indicating that CNN Pipeline will be free beginning July 1.
This is a nice service that streams quality video content. Sometimes I like to listen/watch while at the office. This is not the same feed you would get through your television, but content specifically prepared for the Internet.
Telling folks about this now will probably do little good. However, when the transition comes, I will likely not notice the change and remember to encourage use of this service.
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
