I think this is an interesting conversation.
I definitely fall in the “Naturalists” camp.
I love wikipedia but am but am not overly comfortable with the fracturing of traditional modes of communication and self expression.
The question of editorship is particularly relevant. What with it being de rigeur to have a blog and face book and im –
I look back fondly of the gutenburg model of ingesting information. The individual and the text. Is it even possible to have a solitary experience anymore?
Comment
by
denisebolognino |
April 3, 2009
Humanity changes consecutively. We are living the information and communications revolution, so I believe it is purposeless to compare traditional encyclopedia with wikipedia and the information that can be found in the Net.
Wikipedia is a social revolution and as Jimmy Wales mentions, no less accurate than the traditional encyclopedia. A good media education is required ofcourse, but besides that there isn’t much to say ‘against’ wikipedia. I believe there are several arguments to support that.
On the other hand I find Andrew Keen’s arguments very weak. First he brings up the question “how will I get paid?”. I don’t want to expand the issue in a moral scale so I will say just this; encyclopedia is the only book he can write? People are not going to buy his novels, or newspapers/magazines publishers will not hire him because of wikipedia and the free information on the Net? If he claims that there is a copyright theft going on, then he is having the wrong discussion with the wrong man.
Also if you read the title of his book you can understand that he is just a conservative and afraid man, as most of us, not understanding the transformation of cultures through time and through the natural process of the universe.
I believe there is no need to analyse it more. Information has to be free.
Comment
by
Evangelos |
April 4, 2009
keen is a complete retard. to waste that much air on an argument that doesn’t make sense to everyone but him is a folly so profound. any idiot can assume wiki is always correct, but if you can operate a computer, you know wiki and that its a gateway to information, not 100 percent reliable fact. yet in its growth and maturation it has shown itself to be quite usefull and in the coming age of second technology, it will prove to be even more fruitful.
in regards to solitary experience, close your eyes and flex your abstract mind muscle. experience something only you can and only you can create. don’t even have to meditate.
I feel like some people get used to things being a certain way, and that particular way has benefited them and perhaps they believe it benefits everyone else…and then a certain percentage of people are threatened by a potential undoing of what they have worked so hard to protect or what gave them that ‘edge’ over someone else etc…and Keen sounds like one of those people, I am going to wiki him right now…
‘I believe’ + in + hierarchy’= Scary!
Comment
by
Elise |
April 5, 2009
Well, for better or worse I want to respond the comments posted after our last meeting.
I agree with Evangelos that Andrew Keen’s arguments in the article given are weak. I wanted to get a little bit closer to what he was trying to say so I checked out his website. I haven’t read the entire text of his book or website – but he does make some interesting points. His real concerns seem to be a) regarding the editorial process and b) the possible devaluing of intellectual products. Along the way he expresses some broader cultural observations. In short he makes several points worth discussion and not so easily dismissed by ad hominen attacks – such as “conservative”, “afraid man”.
I strongly disagree with the statement “there is no need to analyse (sic) it more”. I would venture to say that you have not had the last word on the raging culture war.
“Information has to be free”; well it certainly isn’t and neither one of the parties in this discussion makes that particular point.
Ahhh Stephen, another lovely attack. I think calling someone a retard is a wonderful way to dispute his arguments. Congratulations. But I am afraid that you have missed the point altogether. Also thank you for the how to advice on solitary experiences. I was making more of a general statement about our information and media overloaded society and making a rather veiled allusion to Marshall McLuhan.
It is not so much really that I like or agree with Mr. Keen, but think that he makes some valid points, some silly points. I was also personally pained to see Elise’s comment that anyone who believes in Hierarchy is scary. I can only assume that she didn’t mean this as a personal attack on me but that is what she says. I believe in Hierarchy. I believe in Truth , Beauty, Goodness and all sorts of retrograde unpopular things. Not only do I believe in them but hold them dear. Just as I hold dear my faith in God and the institutions He founded on earth. I of course don’t expect that everyone shares that faith, or even that they must in order to be “good” “moral” human beings. But I instinctively shrink at the notion that other people whose ideas I don’t share or understand are scary.
True – it is the “other” and “unknown” that are scary, but in point of fact I don’t really like it.
Another thing I don’t really like is this type of forum. I apologize right now for the above sarcasm. I find that this medium can lead to misunderstandings and extreme expressions. However, there are many wonderful things about this easy, efficient means of the free exchange of ideas.
Cheers
Comment
by
denise bolognino |
April 6, 2009
Post Script.
I forgot the most important part http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/CelestialHierarchy.html
This is a link to
The Celestial Hierarchy by
Dionysius the Areopagite
This is where we get the whole hierarchy thingy –
Angels! This is what I call fun.
Comment
by
denise bolognino |
April 6, 2009
Wikipedia is obviously not a hundred percent a reliable source, but its also not a 100% unreliable. I also don’t think there there is such a thing as a “bad” source. Any source can be useful in its own way if you know how to use it, even one that is blatantly full of lies and untruths, as long as you know how to spot them and seperate them.
For me, probably not for school work, but for everyday life, wikipedia is fine. I also feel it is a good starting point for researching a certain subject, but I don’t use it exclusively. Thats pretty much my feelings on it. For any piece of coursework where I don’t have great background information on the topic, it gets very frustrating trying to search an entire library when I can just go to wikepedia. With wikipedia you can usually find what you are looking for right away and it gives enough info to make it easy to find the topic amongst the referenced texts.
There was also a subject in the discussion class about people who attain diploma’s may not be as knowledgable as they may appear, and that a diploma does not justify anything. Sure there are people out there that are natrually skilled in a certain subject and have good knowledge about it without having gone to college, but having a diploma only proves that. You can’t have a bunch of people running around looking for a job with no credintials to back them up, obviously the proof is a requirement. So while i support the idea that you dont have to go to school to attain knowledge about something of interest, it is an importance in our society as far as trust goes.
Comment
by
Yelena |
April 6, 2009
Hello,
hierarchy defined:
1: a division of angels
2 a: a ruling body of clergy organized into orders or ranks each subordinate to the one above it ; especially : the bishops of a province or nation b: church government by a hierarchy
3: a body of persons in authority
4: the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing ; also : the group so classified5: a graded or ranked series <a hierarchy of values
Comment
by
Elise |
April 6, 2009
I should say I got that from Merriam Webster.
I am not making a personal attack against you or religion. Or at least that was not my intention and I am sorry it came out that way.
Keen makes a statement that he believes in ‘hierarchical knowledge’ to me that sounds strange. I don’t know what I believe in for sure, but I don’t believe in ranking people especially based on their particular circumstances. How much room they were allowed to grow from day one.
And certain ideas are scary to me like: hatred, bigotry, an unwillingness to change, never being ‘happy’, all my teeth falling out, losing my family, killing the planet, etc…
Comment
by
Elise |
April 6, 2009
Thanks Elise, for clarifying.
“hierarchical knowledge” doesn’t mean ranking people.
It more – funny how when you try to explain something that is so much the fabric of your thoughts it is difficult – about the solidity of truth.
And the idea that some knowledge, works of art are more lasting than other – they have something more to say – and are therefore higher than others. Hamlet speaks to us more profoundly than does Homer Simpson – and Homer Simpson has a lot of insights.
I don’t know if that helps.
This is an important question for all of us.
Hey – have a good spring break.
Cheers,
Denise
Comment
by
denisebolognino |
April 7, 2009
Dear Denise,
if you don’t see fear and the conservativeness in the the phrase: “The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture.”, then I assume that you have the same fear but you are not aware of it (or you are and try to hide it). Internet is not killing our culture, but it is the continuation of it, such all technology and science. The fact that it replaces some traditional ways of living and interacting with the world it doesn’t mean that it destroys the actual meaning of living and interacting – and the people who believe so, I will say that again, are afraid and conservative and don’t realize the transformation of cultures through time and through the natural process of the universe.
Thus I am not commiting an ad hominem fallacy because I don’t disapprove his conclusions with the claim that he is afraid and conservative, but I am just trying to prove that he has those characteristics through valid and sound arguments, which are the comparison of the meaning of fear and conservativeness with the meaning you can derive from his title. Ofcourse different people can derive different meanings and I am here to listen to all the different meanings you can derive from that.
Saying “there is no need to analyze(thanks for the help) it more”, I mean it from a personal perspective and according to that post on that forum. Not in general.
Last but not least, I don’t get how Wales doesn’t argue for free information. Ofcourse in a monetary system you expect some kind of reward, but not in the form that you have to pay to have access to the information. This is what free and open information means, in that system. Maybe you can comprehent this better if you do a research
on the Linux, an open source operating system which is the “opponent” of the closed source and commercial operating system we all use – Windows.
Maybe if I said “Information has to be open” you wouldn’t have that kind of compunction.
This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.
I think this is an interesting conversation.
I definitely fall in the “Naturalists” camp.
I love wikipedia but am but am not overly comfortable with the fracturing of traditional modes of communication and self expression.
The question of editorship is particularly relevant. What with it being de rigeur to have a blog and face book and im –
I look back fondly of the gutenburg model of ingesting information. The individual and the text. Is it even possible to have a solitary experience anymore?
Comment by denisebolognino | April 3, 2009
Humanity changes consecutively. We are living the information and communications revolution, so I believe it is purposeless to compare traditional encyclopedia with wikipedia and the information that can be found in the Net.
Wikipedia is a social revolution and as Jimmy Wales mentions, no less accurate than the traditional encyclopedia. A good media education is required ofcourse, but besides that there isn’t much to say ‘against’ wikipedia. I believe there are several arguments to support that.
On the other hand I find Andrew Keen’s arguments very weak. First he brings up the question “how will I get paid?”. I don’t want to expand the issue in a moral scale so I will say just this; encyclopedia is the only book he can write? People are not going to buy his novels, or newspapers/magazines publishers will not hire him because of wikipedia and the free information on the Net? If he claims that there is a copyright theft going on, then he is having the wrong discussion with the wrong man.
Also if you read the title of his book you can understand that he is just a conservative and afraid man, as most of us, not understanding the transformation of cultures through time and through the natural process of the universe.
I believe there is no need to analyse it more. Information has to be free.
Comment by Evangelos | April 4, 2009
keen is a complete retard. to waste that much air on an argument that doesn’t make sense to everyone but him is a folly so profound. any idiot can assume wiki is always correct, but if you can operate a computer, you know wiki and that its a gateway to information, not 100 percent reliable fact. yet in its growth and maturation it has shown itself to be quite usefull and in the coming age of second technology, it will prove to be even more fruitful.
in regards to solitary experience, close your eyes and flex your abstract mind muscle. experience something only you can and only you can create. don’t even have to meditate.
Comment by stephen duhas | April 4, 2009
I feel like some people get used to things being a certain way, and that particular way has benefited them and perhaps they believe it benefits everyone else…and then a certain percentage of people are threatened by a potential undoing of what they have worked so hard to protect or what gave them that ‘edge’ over someone else etc…and Keen sounds like one of those people, I am going to wiki him right now…
‘I believe’ + in + hierarchy’= Scary!
Comment by Elise | April 5, 2009
Well, for better or worse I want to respond the comments posted after our last meeting.
I agree with Evangelos that Andrew Keen’s arguments in the article given are weak. I wanted to get a little bit closer to what he was trying to say so I checked out his website. I haven’t read the entire text of his book or website – but he does make some interesting points. His real concerns seem to be a) regarding the editorial process and b) the possible devaluing of intellectual products. Along the way he expresses some broader cultural observations. In short he makes several points worth discussion and not so easily dismissed by ad hominen attacks – such as “conservative”, “afraid man”.
I strongly disagree with the statement “there is no need to analyse (sic) it more”. I would venture to say that you have not had the last word on the raging culture war.
“Information has to be free”; well it certainly isn’t and neither one of the parties in this discussion makes that particular point.
Ahhh Stephen, another lovely attack. I think calling someone a retard is a wonderful way to dispute his arguments. Congratulations. But I am afraid that you have missed the point altogether. Also thank you for the how to advice on solitary experiences. I was making more of a general statement about our information and media overloaded society and making a rather veiled allusion to Marshall McLuhan.
It is not so much really that I like or agree with Mr. Keen, but think that he makes some valid points, some silly points. I was also personally pained to see Elise’s comment that anyone who believes in Hierarchy is scary. I can only assume that she didn’t mean this as a personal attack on me but that is what she says. I believe in Hierarchy. I believe in Truth , Beauty, Goodness and all sorts of retrograde unpopular things. Not only do I believe in them but hold them dear. Just as I hold dear my faith in God and the institutions He founded on earth. I of course don’t expect that everyone shares that faith, or even that they must in order to be “good” “moral” human beings. But I instinctively shrink at the notion that other people whose ideas I don’t share or understand are scary.
True – it is the “other” and “unknown” that are scary, but in point of fact I don’t really like it.
Another thing I don’t really like is this type of forum. I apologize right now for the above sarcasm. I find that this medium can lead to misunderstandings and extreme expressions. However, there are many wonderful things about this easy, efficient means of the free exchange of ideas.
Cheers
Comment by denise bolognino | April 6, 2009
Post Script.
I forgot the most important part
http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/CelestialHierarchy.html
This is a link to
The Celestial Hierarchy by
Dionysius the Areopagite
This is where we get the whole hierarchy thingy –
Angels! This is what I call fun.
Comment by denise bolognino | April 6, 2009
Wikipedia is obviously not a hundred percent a reliable source, but its also not a 100% unreliable. I also don’t think there there is such a thing as a “bad” source. Any source can be useful in its own way if you know how to use it, even one that is blatantly full of lies and untruths, as long as you know how to spot them and seperate them.
For me, probably not for school work, but for everyday life, wikipedia is fine. I also feel it is a good starting point for researching a certain subject, but I don’t use it exclusively. Thats pretty much my feelings on it. For any piece of coursework where I don’t have great background information on the topic, it gets very frustrating trying to search an entire library when I can just go to wikepedia. With wikipedia you can usually find what you are looking for right away and it gives enough info to make it easy to find the topic amongst the referenced texts.
There was also a subject in the discussion class about people who attain diploma’s may not be as knowledgable as they may appear, and that a diploma does not justify anything. Sure there are people out there that are natrually skilled in a certain subject and have good knowledge about it without having gone to college, but having a diploma only proves that. You can’t have a bunch of people running around looking for a job with no credintials to back them up, obviously the proof is a requirement. So while i support the idea that you dont have to go to school to attain knowledge about something of interest, it is an importance in our society as far as trust goes.
Comment by Yelena | April 6, 2009
Hello,
hierarchy defined:
1: a division of angels
2 a: a ruling body of clergy organized into orders or ranks each subordinate to the one above it ; especially : the bishops of a province or nation b: church government by a hierarchy
3: a body of persons in authority
4: the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing ; also : the group so classified5: a graded or ranked series <a hierarchy of values
Comment by Elise | April 6, 2009
I should say I got that from Merriam Webster.
I am not making a personal attack against you or religion. Or at least that was not my intention and I am sorry it came out that way.
Keen makes a statement that he believes in ‘hierarchical knowledge’ to me that sounds strange. I don’t know what I believe in for sure, but I don’t believe in ranking people especially based on their particular circumstances. How much room they were allowed to grow from day one.
And certain ideas are scary to me like: hatred, bigotry, an unwillingness to change, never being ‘happy’, all my teeth falling out, losing my family, killing the planet, etc…
Comment by Elise | April 6, 2009
Thanks Elise, for clarifying.
“hierarchical knowledge” doesn’t mean ranking people.
It more – funny how when you try to explain something that is so much the fabric of your thoughts it is difficult – about the solidity of truth.
And the idea that some knowledge, works of art are more lasting than other – they have something more to say – and are therefore higher than others. Hamlet speaks to us more profoundly than does Homer Simpson – and Homer Simpson has a lot of insights.
I don’t know if that helps.
This is an important question for all of us.
Hey – have a good spring break.
Cheers,
Denise
Comment by denisebolognino | April 7, 2009
Dear Denise,
if you don’t see fear and the conservativeness in the the phrase: “The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture.”, then I assume that you have the same fear but you are not aware of it (or you are and try to hide it). Internet is not killing our culture, but it is the continuation of it, such all technology and science. The fact that it replaces some traditional ways of living and interacting with the world it doesn’t mean that it destroys the actual meaning of living and interacting – and the people who believe so, I will say that again, are afraid and conservative and don’t realize the transformation of cultures through time and through the natural process of the universe.
Thus I am not commiting an ad hominem fallacy because I don’t disapprove his conclusions with the claim that he is afraid and conservative, but I am just trying to prove that he has those characteristics through valid and sound arguments, which are the comparison of the meaning of fear and conservativeness with the meaning you can derive from his title. Ofcourse different people can derive different meanings and I am here to listen to all the different meanings you can derive from that.
Saying “there is no need to analyze(thanks for the help) it more”, I mean it from a personal perspective and according to that post on that forum. Not in general.
Last but not least, I don’t get how Wales doesn’t argue for free information. Ofcourse in a monetary system you expect some kind of reward, but not in the form that you have to pay to have access to the information. This is what free and open information means, in that system. Maybe you can comprehent this better if you do a research
on the Linux, an open source operating system which is the “opponent” of the closed source and commercial operating system we all use – Windows.
Maybe if I said “Information has to be open” you wouldn’t have that kind of compunction.
peace.
Comment by Evangelos | April 10, 2009