Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen looked like an interesting counterpoint to another book awaiting my reading, Wikinomics. I’m only about 10% of the way through Cult of the Amateur, and I’m finding it hard going. Not that it’s badly written in terms of the phrasing; that’s probably the best thing about it. Keen had a Saul on the road to Damscus moment and turned against “Web 2.0” a few years ago and this is his poorly researched and badly thought out screed against the Web 2.0 ultra partisans. He makes so many mistakes it’s hard to pick them out for scrutiny. Here’s just a couple (I’m using wikipedia links here because it’s one of Keen’s biggest targets and he fails to acknowledge its utility as a starting point):

  • Zork and Myst are not MUDs. The closest they come is later episodes in the series being MMORPGS. Zork, of course, derives from Colossal Cave Adventure, and the original MUD was partially derived from Zork.
  • He entirely fails to address any real economics, despite the subtitle claiming the book is about how new web technology is “assaulting our economy”. In fact, he follows the typical Broken Window Fallacy in claiming that changes to the economy which undermine the profits of certain players must be bad.

The poor research he has done, for a traditional book, undermines his claim that traditional publishing produces better information. Having gone through detailed copy-editing with Pandora’s Box, I’m surprised the Zork/Myst type errors got through. Obviously he didn’t have as good, or as informed, a copy-editor as Wiley engaged for us.
His constant pleading for the profits of Britannica, the music business, and existing powerful vested interest, many if not all of whom have screwed the general public over the years in many ways (financial, political, manipulation of the truth…) are rather sickening. Now, I have my problems with some of the aspects of Web 2.0. Not least I ban my students from using Wikipedia as a reference in their academic writing. It’s a good starting point, but not (and to be fair to it it now mostly does not claim to be) authoritative. Personally, I think Britannica could have completely undermined Wikipedia by offering their entire work online in advertising supported format, or with very low subscription costs. This sort of failure to innovate to new business models by existing players, is the real source of their woes, and not the “cult of the amateur”. The amateurs are providing people with what they want and need: cheap and easy access to a wide range of information.
As a final comment on Keen’s thesis, I’d point out that it took many years for the modern publishing industry to settle down into a successful economic model. Web 2.0 is too early for that. It’s a disruptive technology, but it’s likely that it will lead, in an evolved form, into a more efficient marketplace. That’s the real lesson of The Long Tail that Keen misses completely. The Long Tail is about spreading the wealth through more of the worthwhile material, which generally will cut down (or even out) the number of people getting mega-rich, but on the other hand provide a much larger number of people with the possibilities of making a (possibly partial) living from their work. That is, indeed, a positive “democratisation” which Keen sees as the fall of civilisation. Think again, and next time, do your homework properly if you want people to take you seriously.