{"id":395,"date":"2005-10-17T09:00:52","date_gmt":"2005-10-17T09:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"\/ifbookblog\/?p=395"},"modified":"2005-10-17T09:00:52","modified_gmt":"2005-10-17T09:00:52","slug":"nicholas_carr_on_the_amorality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/2005\/10\/17\/nicholas_carr_on_the_amorality\/","title":{"rendered":"nicholas carr on “the amorality of web 2.0”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Nicholas Carr<\/a>, who writes about business and technology and formerly was an editor of the Harvard Business Review, has published an interesting though problematic piece on “the amorality of web 2.0”<\/a>. I was drawn to the piece because it seemed to be questioning the giddy optimism surrounding “web 2.0”, specifically Kevin Kelly’s rapturous late-summer retrospective<\/a> on ten years of the world wide web, from Netscape IPO to now. While he does poke some much-needed holes in the carnival floats, Carr fails to adequately address the new media practices on their own terms and ends up bashing Wikipedia with some highly selective quotes.
\nCarr is skeptical that the collectivist paradigms of the web can lead to the creation of high-quality, authoritative work (encyclopedias, journalism etc.). Forced to choose, he’d take the professionals over the amateurs. But put this way it’s a Hobson’s choice. Flawed as it is, Wikipedia is in its infancy and is probably not going away. Whereas the future of Britannica is less sure. And it’s not just amateurs that are participating in new forms of discourse (take as an example the new law faculty blog<\/a> at U. Chicago). Anyway, here’s Carr:<\/p>\n

The Internet is changing the economics of creative work – or, to put it more broadly, the economics of culture – and it’s doing it in a way that may well restrict rather than expand our choices. Wikipedia might be a pale shadow of the Britannica, but because it’s created by amateurs rather than professionals, it’s free. And free trumps quality all the time. So what happens to those poor saps who write encyclopedias for a living? They wither and die. The same thing happens when blogs and other free on-line content go up against old-fashioned newspapers and magazines. Of course the mainstream media sees the blogosphere as a competitor. It is<\/i> a competitor. And, given the economics of the competition, it may well turn out to be a superior competitor. The layoffs we’ve recently seen at major newspapers may just be the beginning, and those layoffs should be cause not for self-satisfied snickering but for despair. Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can’t imagine anything more frightening.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He then has a nice follow-up<\/a> in which he republishes a letter from an administrator at Wikipedia, which responds to the above.<\/p>\n

Encyclopedia Britannica is an amazing work. It’s of consistent high quality, it’s one of the great books in the English language and it’s doomed. Brilliant but pricey has difficulty competing economically with free and apparently adequate….
\n…So if we want a good encyclopedia in ten years, it’s going to have to be a good Wikipedia. So those who care about getting a good encyclopedia are going to have to work out how to make Wikipedia better, or there won’t be anything.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let’s discuss.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Nicholas Carr, who writes about business and technology and formerly was an editor of the Harvard Business Review, has published an interesting though problematic piece on “the amorality of web 2.0”. I was drawn to the piece because it seemed to be questioning the giddy optimism surrounding “web 2.0”, specifically Kevin Kelly’s rapturous late-summer retrospective […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59,164,168,171,183,192,216,333,590,592,893,967,1060,1119,1155,1237,1354,1367,1371,1385,1546,1547,1726,1997,2002,1998,2011,2016],"tags":[3032],"class_list":["post-395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-amateur","category-blog","category-blogging","category-blogs","category-book","category-books","category-britannica","category-collective","category-encyclopedia","category-encyclopedia_britannica","category-internet","category-journalism","category-libraries-search-and-the-web","category-mainstream_media","category-media","category-msm","category-online","category-open_content","category-open_source","category-os","category-publishing","category-publishing-broadcast-and-the-press","category-social-software","category-web","category-web_2-0","category-web2-0","category-wiki","category-wikipedia","tag-web2-0-web_2-0-os-internet-online-web-wikipedia-wiki-open_content-open_source-collective-blog-blogs-blogging-publishing-media-msm-mainstream_media-journalism-amateur-britannica-encyclopedia_britannica"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=395"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}