In Defense of the Infinite Monkeys.

When reading the introduction to Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur, I was shocked, appalled, and worried at the state of the modern media. But I'm pretty certain that I was not shocked in the way that Keen wanted me to be. Keen builds his thesis upon the belief that the internet is the ruin of all. According to Keen, the internet is a breeding ground for mediocrity and inanity that goes unchecked and is destroying the populace. What shocked me about this was not his sensational message, but the fact that a book such as this should be relevant.

In the first place, a book such as this is written specifically for those who already agree with him. An enthusiast of the internet would probably not, under normal circumstances, purchase this book, nor would he or she be particularly swayed by the arguments if he or she did. The majority of people who will actively seek this book out have probably never posted a video to YouTube, nor have they ever started an account on LiveJournal. If this book is meant to change the course of the internet users into giving up their current actions merely because the author equates them to monkeys, then clearly it was misguided in its attempts.

But even so, it almost seems like the author is trying to use fear-mongering tactics without actually thinking about his claims. When he discusses the abomination that is YouTube, he talks about videos featuring "a Malaysian dancer in absurdly short skirts grooving to Ricky Martin and Britney Spears; a dog chasing its tail; an Englishwoman instructing her viewers how to eat a chocolate and marmalade cookie" and so on. While these do sound like things that could admittedly find a home on YouTube, there are really only two possibilities as to the formation of this list.

The first possibility is that these are real videos, which would not be necessarily surprising. But if the author is aware of these videos, then that of course means that he had to actively seek these out. I do not mean that he searched "how to eat a chocolate and marmalade cookie", but in order to view any video on youtube, one is required to click on a link that contains a thumbnail image of the video, a title, and possibly a short description. The question then arises as to why the author chose these particular links to follow. Perhaps he found the Malaysian dancer's legs enticing. But of course, I am attacking the author's character, which is a childish tactic.

The other possibility, which would be just as unsurprising, is that the author made these videos up. This does somewhat make sense: Why would a dancer be "grooving to Ricky Martin and Britney Spears" in 2007, almost a decade after the peak of these performers' careers, when there are far more popular club song performers in this year such as Akon, Rhianna, and T-Pain?

That's not the only thing that seems suspect about this article. Keen states that Wikipedia can be updated by anyone and is not checked or edited for content or fact at all. This is simply not true, no matter how many people may believe it. To prove this to yourself, you must only go onto any page and post something that is blatantly false. Yes, you can do this. You have the ability to go onto the page about famous television actor David Duchovny and, in the section discussing his early childhood, state that he sprang fully formed from the throbbing forehead of his father. However, I urge you to check back on that very page in twenty-four hours. The page will invariably look exactly the same as it was before you posted. An overzealous teacher at my high school encouraged students to vandalize the page about our high school. The repeated misuse caused the Wikipedia moderators (and yes Keen, there are moderators on Wikipedia) to block the school's IP address from ever editing articles again. So, in response to Keen: No, not everybody can edit Wikipedia, Yes, it actually is checked and edited for content, and as a matter of fact, there are consequences for repeated misuse of the website.

With all of this considered, I must wonder what exactly Keen takes issue with in regard to the internet. He talks about the endless drivel created by uninteresting users posting about their personal lives. But really, what harm does this do? I will admit that not everyone is relevant, but why can't people post about their lives online? Certainly anyone who has started a video web log series on YouTube or a solitary account on LiveJournal can tell you that they get almost no views or comments, save for the friends whose faces are bombarded with constant links and urges to read. Yes, anyone can post. But does that mean that anyone listens?

-Dave Briggs