http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=556&doc_id=166342...
"So how will today's brutal economic climate change the Web 2.0 "free" economy? It will result in the rise of online media businesses that reward their contributors with cash; it will mean the success of Knol over Wikipedia, Mahalo over Google (Nasdaq: GOOG), TheAtlantic.com over the HuffingtonPost.com, iTunes over MySpace, Hulu over YouTube Inc. , Playboy.com over Voyeurweb.com, TechCrunch over the blogosphere, CNN's professional journalism over CNN's iReporter citizen-journalism... The hungry and cold unemployed masses aren't going to continue giving away their intellectual labor on the Internet in the speculative hope that they might get some "back end" revenue. "Free" doesn't fill anyone's belly; it doesn't warm anyone up. "
If only the economic downturn would eliminate the market for Andrew Keen.
- d.
"...The hungry and cold unemployed masses aren't going to continue giving away their intellectual labor on the Internet in the speculative hope that they might get some "back end" revenue." http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=556&doc_id=166342
Sheesh. But of course that's *not* *why* people give away their intellectual labor on the Internet, so the rest of his conclusions are compoundingly false.
People give away their labor in this case because it makes them feel good, and/or because of the non-monetary community rewards surrounding the effort. Neither of those changes materially as the economy goes down (or up).
(I'd post this as a comment to his article, but their registration procedure is waaay too complicated. Screw 'em.)
People give away their labor in this case because it makes them feel good, and/or because of the non-monetary community rewards surrounding the effort. Neither of those changes materially as the economy goes down (or up).
Actually, a downturn in the economy would result in an increase in unemployment which would probably result in more people with time on their hands so more people doing volunteer work. It would also result in big corporations having less money to spend. So, a downturn in the economy is *good* for Wikipedia and the rest of Web 2.0.
2008/10/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Actually, a downturn in the economy would result in an increase in unemployment which would probably result in more people with time on their hands so more people doing volunteer work. It would also result in big corporations having less money to spend. So, a downturn in the economy is *good* for Wikipedia and the rest of Web 2.0.
By the Andrew Keen theory, sex relies on the existence of pimps and brothels. Lovemaking is completely beyond his understanding.
- d.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:22 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Actually, a downturn in the economy would result in an increase in unemployment which would probably result in more people with time on their hands so more people doing volunteer work. It would also result in big corporations having less money to spend. So, a downturn in the economy is *good* for Wikipedia and the rest of Web 2.0.
By the Andrew Keen theory, sex relies on the existence of pimps and brothels. Lovemaking is completely beyond his understanding.
Maybe I misunderstood what he meant by "back-end revenue"... :P
Seriously though, we need a new word for high profile full-time troll.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood what he meant by "back-end revenue"... :P
Seriously though, we need a new word for high profile full-time troll.
"pundit"?
--Oskar
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:36 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=556&doc_id=166342...
"So how will today's brutal economic climate change the Web 2.0 "free" economy? It will result in the rise of online media businesses that reward their contributors with cash; it will mean the success of Knol over Wikipedia, Mahalo over Google (Nasdaq: GOOG), TheAtlantic.com over the HuffingtonPost.com, iTunes over MySpace, Hulu over YouTube Inc. , Playboy.com over Voyeurweb.com, TechCrunch over the blogosphere, CNN's professional journalism over CNN's iReporter citizen-journalism... The hungry and cold unemployed masses aren't going to continue giving away their intellectual labor on the Internet in the speculative hope that they might get some "back end" revenue. "Free" doesn't fill anyone's belly; it doesn't warm anyone up. "
If only the economic downturn would eliminate the market for Andrew Keen.
Honestly, I have a policy of simply not reading people that are this blatantly stupid. I mean, it's not even funny how little he understands the internet, and no one with half a brain listens and believes in what he says. He can bark how much he wants about how wikipedia sucks, it's not gonna make it any truer, and it's not going to make anyone use something else.
And seriously, Knol? It's a cesspool, it's useless. Half the articles are promotional, the other halfs are straight copies from wikipedia (copies that don't fulfill all the requirements of the GFDL, btw). Just as a test, I just tried one search on Knol, to compare articles with Wikipedia. I searched "Kentucky". I figured, it has to have an article on Kentucky. It's a US state for cryin' out loud. I was wrong. My search came up nil.
He can crow all he wants. He's wrong, we all know he's wrong, and every important person on the web knows he's wrong. Let's just not care.
--Oskar
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=556&doc_id=166342...
"So how will today's brutal economic climate change the Web 2.0 "free" economy? It will result in the rise of online media businesses that reward their contributors with cash; it will mean the success of Knol over Wikipedia, Mahalo over Google (Nasdaq: GOOG), TheAtlantic.com over the HuffingtonPost.com, iTunes over MySpace, Hulu over YouTube Inc. , Playboy.com over Voyeurweb.com, TechCrunch over the blogosphere, CNN's professional journalism over CNN's iReporter citizen-journalism... The hungry and cold unemployed masses aren't going to continue giving away their intellectual labor on the Internet in the speculative hope that they might get some "back end" revenue. "Free" doesn't fill anyone's belly; it doesn't warm anyone up. "
If only the economic downturn would eliminate the market for Andrew Keen.
- d.
Amen, brother. +1
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2008/10/23 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
David Gerard wrote:
If only the economic downturn would eliminate the market for Andrew Keen.
- d.
Amen, brother. +1
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
I think not. The media are always going to be looking for someone who can be relied on to produce an anti wikipedia statement when they require one. From our POV we could do a lot worse than Andrew Keen. Consider
1)The guy has a fair bit of integrity. He doesn't lie about what wikipedia is so we don't have to spend large amounts of effort fighting off say Conservapedia style distortion.
2)His attacks are fairly broad meaning that they are likely to have little appeal to anyone likely to become a wikipedia editor. It also limits his ability to build up much of a following even within the reflexively anti wikipedia groups.
3)He is smart enough to realise that his arguments mean that he has to maintain a certain degree of standards himself. There is a limit to how much he can go after wikipedia on more gossipy issues.
Sure he's no walking strawman Jack Thompson but as a talking head for wikipedia opposition go we could do a lot worse.