Web 2.0: The decline of society?

Andrew Keen was recently on a TVO interview, "Do we all now worship at the cult of the amateur? Andrew Keen on how Web 2.0 is undermining professionalism, knowledge, and authority" that my friend Tony had forwarded to me.

Andrew explained his view on the dark side of the Internet and web 2.0. He is not against the Internet but believes web 2.0 is leading to the decay of culture through it's narcissistic ideals that allow anyone to publish content without concern for the depth or prioritization of the content. He used Wikipedia as an example, and to his credit, he conceded that the quality relative to Britannica was not the concern here but prioritization (or lack thereof) of content within Wikipedia was the real issue.

Keen argues that Britannica's value is through it's central editorial body which prioritizes the work of scientists such as Marie Curie ahead of pop icons like Pamela Anderson and therefore helps us realize what is truly important to society as a whole. He went on to say, the impact on today's youth, this lack of prioritization from seemingly "reliable" sources of information, is the decay in culture and prioritization. We are failing an entire generation by not providing them a prioritized way to understand the world around them. Without the ability to distinguish "well written" and "well researched" content, our youth will forget the past, mis-prioritize content and be ill equipped to further contribute and refine our society.

I didn't find his argument particularly persuasive. Let's assume, that Wikipedia did not exist. In fact, let's assume "Web 2.0" doesn't exist. According to Keen, we should be better off right? Mass media which is centrally edited would prioritize content for us. Well, let's look at that. Think about the ridiculous amount of time, "respected" authorities of content such as CNN, spent on trivial but salacious "news". Do you recall how many times we were forced to hear about Anna Nicole Smith? How about Britney Spears? I can guarantee that if it weren't for mass media, my awareness of these things would be almost nil, in fact those "young impressionable" minds are being taught by mass media that this is "important" and that lines between news and entertainment do not matter. How many "entertainment" shows do we need on TV? If we could count on editorial prioritization to evolve culture then why do we see a story about what a pop icon is wearing to an awards show, right beside a story on a high-school shooting on an "Entertainment" show?!?! Where is the "improved" editorial prioritization?

But at least Britannica would hold the truth right? Possibly true. But the truth is only as valuable as those who read it and understand it. We can't blame web 2.0 for why Marie Curie isn't the most sought after article in Britannica or Wikipedia.

The discussion had similar elements to a Mesh session I had attended earlier this year. I also know several "web 2.0" evangelists have already criticized Keen's work. I do think there are some underlying truths however. For example, I like his points around "anonymity". This mask unfortunately let's people publish content with no accountability. Perhaps anonymity is a topic for a different day. The interview did make me consider another point, the need for critical thinking. Something that needs to be taught and emphasized. And something I believe is at risk. Information is "too easy" to come by and there is so much of it out there. You will be able to find support for anything you wish to argue on the Internet. The challenge is to know how to evaluate those arguments, and seek counter arguments for a complete understanding and informed decision making.

That's one of the reasons, I am very proud to have recently been invited to join the advisers for TakingITGlobal. This non-profit organization provides youth with an opportunity to be informed, become inspired, inspire others and to get involved in causes that they can learn about. It's not about any one specific "cause". It's about empowering our youth to drive positive change and evolve society and to think. It's an opportunity that, outside of web 2.0, would have been extremely difficult to do. It provides youth with a global voice and an opportunity to be part of the conversation not just consumers of pre-determined content.

To think web 2.0 will solve the worlds' problems is overly idealistic, but so is the notion that web 2.0 is the beginning of the decline of our global society. The answer is somewhere in between. What I do know is that regardless of where you get your content or who provides it, you need to think critically about it. Is it more important now? I'd suggest it's always been important.

Getting started with Enterprise 2.0: Now what?!

So your company has decided to go head first into Enterprise 2.0 thing. Perhaps you convinced those decision makers with that slick "Meet Charlie" slideshow on why it's key to the business. Great! You've read all the articles, subscribe to all the key blogs, bought all the nifty tools and you are ready to go! Now where to start?

Well, perhaps you'd want to listen to the input of 119 CIO's that Forrester surveyed. In general, their finding was that of the whole web 2.0 spectrum of applications the three that had good business value were RSS, wiki's and tagging. The tools of questionable business value included blogging and social networks.

The "good value" ones, are clearly productivity enhancers. RSS provides the ability to manage information and personalize content, free from clutter and ads. It saves valuable time in getting the best information from several sources. Wiki's address the challenges of coordination of documents, version control and tagging provides a decentralized means to metadata that allow us to classify things the way the author had intended and ultimately able to find relevant information faster. If you are looking for incremental gains, definitely look at these. Although wiki's are closer to being a collaboration & innovation enabler, RSS & tagging alone do not push collaboration.

You could try to argue that the "questionable" tools also create productivity but it would be difficult. In fact, you are likely to get the exact opposite reaction, which is, these tools provide opportunities for our employees to waste time. It is reminiscent of McGregor's Theory X & Theory Y (which is nicely summarized by Bertrand Dupperin) work done decades ago. It is also the classic risk reward scenario. The perceived risk by Theory X'ers are 1) People will Waste Time, 2) People will blog about items that run counter to the goals of the organization.

Blogging, isn't only a communication vehicle for keeping in touch, it's a rich communication vehicle capable of providing a personality to an executive. Those who use it wisely, will be able to show genuine character, vulnerability, sincerity, transparency, emotion, personalization, and personality. So what? TRUST! Trust is something that evolves over time, through a series of interactions and history. Think about it. Why do you trust the people that you do? I've written before that trust is a pre-requisite to employee engagement and ultimately collaboration.

Social Forums & Social Networks, are a bit more complicated in my opinion. At first glance it would seem to make sense that people sharing stories and helping one another out is nothing but good value. You still get the concerns over time wasting, but you also have greater concern over controversial content as larger communities are required for forums. Blogs for example, could be controlled so only certain people are allowed to blog at first and can more easily be governed if one wants to. There are also questions as to what forums are allowed and not allowed, and possibly concerns that forums may actually bring some people together, but drive larger groups apart as discussed at Mesh07.

Like all business decisions. Understand first what you are trying to achieve, and be specific. Incremental productivity gains, go with RSS, Tagging and Wiki's. There is little downside to these tools beyond standard change-management. If you are after cultural change, innovation, next generation collaboration consider social forums, blogs and other social based applications but proceed with well thought out plans around the process and people aspects and not just the technical aspects. Not all enterprise 2.0 technologies are created equal. If you get stuck... You might want to join an E2.0 social network ;)

Mesh07: Edelman's PR advice applied to Enterprise 2.0

Richard Edelman, CEO of Edelman, the worlds largest independent public relations (PR) firm kicked things off this morning at Mesh 07. I am not a PR person myself but his insight can be applied to any enterprise looking at adopting Web 2.0 technologies (i.e. Enterprise 2.0) such as blogging, and social forums. Here are some of his comments and my corporate view to them.

"Don't leave the whole conversation up to the opposition."


You may be bold enough to introduce corporate blogging but how would you respond if you started receiving several extremely negative comments? Some "purists" would argue that you must never "govern" these comments. Personally, I believe that if a comment is inappropriate and adds little to the conversation, it should be removed. Definitely, Techcrunch personality, Mike Arrington was upfront with the audience yesterday in saying that he regularly re-edits his comments after-the-fact.

At a minimum, you SHOULD provide the counter arguments and support for your blog. Being accepting of criticism doesn't mean just hiding until the bombing subsides. Your supporters will be looking for your support and want to hear your side of the story.

Another important point... THINK before you blog or crowdsource. For example, providing an opportunity for anyone to create a commercial for the Chevy Tahoe in a climate where there is heavy evangelism over environmentalism isn't the wisest move. For those who know the story, several "creative" people took up the offer from GM but created attack ads that put the Tahoe in a very negative environmental light. Perhaps another communication medium would have been better.


"There is a trade-off between Control and Credibility"

Edelman suggested middle management would be a good place to start blogging. He talked to the Microsoft example in which Robert Scoble, gained credibility by being transparent and genuine as illustrated in his public attack on his own company. In the long-run, Microsoft may have benefited from letting Scoble's opinion flow instead of shutting down the conversation.

Another example was the Dove campaign on YouTube, "In search of real beauty". The Dove brand rose considerably with this transparent approach.

In the end, Edelman gave 3 points of advice.

1. Make your stories visual. Go beyond the words.

2. Don’t let yourself be defeated by set backs. You will fall a few times.

3. Don’t let clients put you in a box. Stand your ground.

This was just the kick-off. No Doubt you will see many more blogs coming out of Mesh 07!

Mesh07: Digital Blinders - Are We an Inch Wide and a Mile Deep?

Today I attended the Mesh 07 Conference and for me the most interesting (philosophically intense) session was the one titled "Digital Blinders - Are We an Inch Wide and a Mile Deep?" with a panel consisting of Mark Schneider, Nora Young and Mark Federman.

To be honest, I had no clue what this would be about. As I sat down I noticed a cartoon backdrop depicting 3 teenagers slouched on a couch surfing the web and commenting on sensational pictures of Britney Spears. The tag line said "The Death of the Newspapers"

We were quickly informed that this session was to discuss whether the abundance of information has caused us to be passive, lazy consumers of mass content lacking depth of understanding? It was kicked off by an excerpt from Al Gore's recent book, "Assault on Reason" in which Gore expresses anger over the media's single focus on salacious topics such as Paris Hilton, OJ Simpson, Laci Peterson, etc... while the US quietly made catastrophic errors in judgment about the environment, and the war on Iraq.

Of the many points discussed, the one concept that made me really think was whether the allowance of self-organized social communities actually drove collaboration further apart? The reasoning is that people are more apt to look for websites, communities, articles that support their disposition on certain topics rather than counter arguments to their pre-conceived ideas.

As communities of like minded people form, it reinforces their positions and causes an "us versus them" divide. Mark Federman, pointed to our Western education system that reinforces the zero-sum assumption in the way they teach children then you are either "right" or that you are "wrong". You can not have two right answers.

After the session, I chatted with some peers and discussed the implications to a company. Here are a four concepts from that discussion.

1. Focus on creating integrated forums that offer multi-perspectives instead of separate forums dedicated to specific interests.

2. Provide access to multi-source of information for multiple perspectives.

3. Focus on improving critical thinking and the ability to process multiple arguments and identify strength of arguments.

4. Accept the concept of emergent understanding and that it is ok to NOT have an immediate position.

Looking forward to tomorrow's session.