Web 2.0 without the warm fuzzy glow
I’m getting closer to what bugged me about what I first thought was the techno-determinism of Siemens theory. The impression is still there, further augmented by the techno-romanticism of his Web 2.0 podcast. (note, that I think his theory has tons of potential, but… )
Here is a burst the bubble sobering look at Web 2.0 and all things collective. Must I say that we fundamentally need these clear visioned critics. I particularly appreciate what they bring to the table. An excerpt from Nicholas Carr’s blog:
The amorality of Web 2.0
October 03, 2005
[snip] My problem is this: When we view the Web in religious terms, when we imbue it with our personal yearning for transcendence, we can no longer see it objectively. By necessity, we have to look at the Internet as a moral force, not as a simple collection of inanimate hardware and software. No decent person wants to worship an amoral conglomeration of technology.
And so all the things that Web 2.0 represents – participation, collectivism, virtual communities, amateurism – become unarguably good things, things to be nurtured and applauded, emblems of progress toward a more enlightened state. But is it really so? Is there a counterargument to be made? Might, on balance, the practical effect of Web 2.0 on society and culture be bad, not good? To see Web 2.0 as a moral force is to turn a deaf ear to such questions.
Let me bring the discussion down to a brass tack. If you read anything about Web 2.0, you’ll inevitably find praise heaped upon Wikipedia as a glorious manifestation of “the age of participation.”
Continued: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php
Lets take the starry eyed blinders off and take it from there. Especially when thinking about learning and education. I`m a web enthousiast always have been. Lately I’ve come across some sobering ‘community’ experiences (see my lastest flickr posting) where blind enthousiasts were quite capable of imposing their rose colored glass view on those who begged to see things differently. Imposing the technological social, may perhaps not be the way to go, or at least not the entire way!
