In the excerpt of "Cult of the Amateur" by Andrew Keen, the idea that the digital age is quickly taking over print is discussed along with the author's unfavorable attitude toward the rise of blogging as a source of newsworthy information. Keen uses T.H. Huxley's "infinite monkey theorem" to compare bloggers to monkeys with typewriters. This comparison illustrates Keen's judgment on the ease in which anyone with access to a computer can become a published writer. He believes that if this continues, the majority of the information consumed will be false. He says that it is already difficult for people to distinguish between fact and fiction when a person turns to the Internet for his or her daily news update.
Keen also addresses sites such as YouTube and Wikipedia. When describing YouTube he state that it "eclipses even the blogs in the inanity and absurdity of its content" (5). Obviously, Keen is not in favor of expanding the digital age. In regards to Wikipedia, he also notes his distrust when he says "Then there is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia where anyone with opposable thumbs and a fifth grade education can publish anything on any topic from AC/DC to Zoroastrianism" (4). Sure, anyone can post anything they want on Wikipedia. However, with a short period of time, the information will be taken down. He seems to think Wikipedia is not monitored at all, which shows how little he actually knows about the site. This makes me question why he writing a book on this subject in the first place.
I disagree with Keen for the most part. I think his outlook is pessimistic and it is not likely that every person with something to say should be compared to a "monkey with a typewriter." Admittedly, there are probably some people like that out there, but I do not think that it is rational to believe that it can be stopped or that the majority of Internet users are that way. Instead, I think our energy should be placed on educating people about how to find a reliable source and how you know if a source is legitimate or not. Any resource can be abused. Obviously, everything on YouTube is not educational, but why should it have to be? YouTube can be used in a scholarly way, I know a lot of my classes use clips from YouTube that apply to what we are learning, but it can also be used for pointless fun. I do not necessarily think that is a bad thing.
Keen does make an interesting point when he explains that if someone searches for a phrase in Google and clicks on one of the links that appears, that link is more likely to show up for the next person with a similar search. Depending on the situation and what is being searched for, this could be a negative consequence of having so much faith in technology. I think it is important to know that there is information on the Internet that is true, that is not true, and that is merely someone else's opinion. People just need to be educated so they understand the difference and know what to watch out for. I also do not believe that the majority of people who conduct a Google search believe the first thing they read. Keen does not give the average person much credit.
The Internet is not "killing our culture" as the title states. It is definitely a useful resource. Any resource can be seen in a negative light if it is abused. However, I do not believe that there is any reason for the Internet to be seen as purely a hindrance on our culture, it is a part that needs to be accepted.
-Amber Griffin
Keen, Andrew. The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture. New York: DoubleDay, 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment