Skip to main content

Reaction to the Keen Article

My BlogPal (I think I am going to Trademark that term) Maddie Grant wrote a post about her encounter with Associations Now magazine. Then she followed up with a post about the Keen Article after being challenged by Acronym's Scott Briscoe. So, here is my take on the whole thing now that I have had a chance to read it.

Keen is mostly worried that we will accept information as fact that isn't. Primarily, as an expert in an area, he is afraid you will believe someone else with less credentials over him. Web 2.0 doesn't vet knowledge, credentials, and status like traditional media. He likes the old way. It works for him. I understand that. It worked for years.

However, it also meant that people that weren't necessarily experts, but that had bits of really good knowledge, never got to share them. Well, now they can.

A lot of what you find on Web 2.0 is crap. I agree. But in the long run, it vets itself. Pages with total garbage get fewer views and go away. The long tail curve goes into effect. The waste goes to the end. It just means you have to sort a little more, but you get a lot more information. You can quickly scan 10 pieces of information and pull out 5 good nuggets. I would much rather do that than read one newspaper story and get 2 nuggets. I learn from having to sort the information as well.

He doesn't bash Web 2.0 all that much. He does see that it isn't going away. And he does acknowledge the need for associations to get involved in order to continue to be the provider of information for its members. All in all, an interesting read. He is a bit elitist, and sounds like a curmudgeon. But in the end, I think he gets it (to a degree).

Comments

Maddie Grant said…
BlogPal is good - I was also called a "Blogger Bud" recently... we should create a wiki!
: )
Matt Baehr said…
Here is the link to the Keen interview on Colbert.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=91639

Popular posts from this blog

10 Thoughts on #ASAE10

Ok, so I could have spelled out the title, but chose the hashtag - #asae10. Supposedly there were over 8,000 tweets with the hashtag, but probably countless more direct messages of messages that left out the hashtag but were conference related. Two years ago, we were using twitter as a backchannel to talk about speakers. Now, over 800 people sent conference related tweets. If you aren't on Twitter, you are already late to the party. Anyway, on with the post... In no particular order, my thoughts on this years ASAE Annual Conference: 1. LA was a good venue. Lots to do. Hotels close by. Only downside was the rooms were a bit of a hike. 2. I missed Sunday because of family obligations. That really put me behind the 8 ball. Since I led a session, that meant I only got to go to 3 true sessions. Sorry, I don't count Joy Behar and the closing session. Although Marshall Goldsmith was good, I probably wouldn't have gone to see that speech as a Learning Lab. 3. Based on #...

The Whole Cook Source Flap

I am going to give my 2 cents on this whole Cook Source thing. If you don't know what I am talking about, you can read more here and here . I am sure a few folks are going to take umbrage with my stance, but that is bound to happen. So a magazine found a blog post, liked it, printed it while giving credit to the author. The author hears about it, and gets pissed? She wants printed apologies and a donation made, because she got published? What am I missing here? Who wouldn't want their stuff to be published while being credited? Isn't that one of the main tenants of blogging, to be linked to? Sure, the response from the editor was one of the dumbest things ever written and she handled it tremendously bad. However, I am just floored that this person is pissed off. True, the internet is not public domain. However, every college paper in the world has citations. And all those students didn't contact the author to make sure they can use it. And every blog post ...

Generational Issues

The latest Acronym post about Generational Issues got me thinking. I thought about writing a comment, but figured this deserved its own post. I am going to take the contrarian route, maybe spark some discussion. Feel free to tell me I am wrong, or maybe agree with me (as everyone should). Aren't we making too big a deal about the generational differences? Don't things evolve with the times? As staff turns over and new ideas are introduced, don't they inherently reflect the attitudes and ideas of their particular group? I know that you want to be proactive and you have to have a plan for the future to make sure you are still viable, but will you really need to change your entire business model? I know that there will be some extreme cases where that will be true as certain products become obsolete, but in most cases it won't. It is nice to generalize and stereotypes exist for a reason. But not every group is going to change how they do business just because Gen X differ...