Enterprise and the cult of the amateur

• Tweet

• Tweet

At present I’m in what Gartner might call the trough of disillusionment. While my enthusiasm for all things Web 2.0 is as strong as ever, I am seeing disturbing signs about how Web 2.0 is presented that leave me deeply troubled. Much of this stems from my watching a video recording of a debate between David Weinberger and Andrew Keen which was recorded at Supernova. It was riveting viewing at a number of levels. I have since replayed portions to help gain more insights into the discussion and it has led me on a thought stream that’s taking a different course to that of many other commenters. For those who want a potted take, there is a very good ‘live blogged’ commentary at Social Media Club. For reference, David is the author of Everything is Miscellaneous (he was also co-author of The Cluetrain Manifesto) while Andrew authored The Cult of the Amateur.

I like Mitch Ratcliffe’s summary:

Keen…chose to deride everyone associated with Web 2.0 as wide-eyed Utopians and, particularly, assumed anyone was a kind of idiot pandering to the new order.

Weinberger…allowed himself to be painted in the role of utopian, failing to deflect Keen’s characterizations of him as open to any idea with an uncritical acceptance that is apparently the signature of Web 2.0. Keen repeatedly contrasted himself with Weinberger, portraying his ideas as mission of the skeptic defending modernity against a horde of self-indulgent loudmouths.

It doesn’t matter how many times I watch the video I come away with the same impression: David failed to put up a solid defense, preferring instead to play ‘nice guy’ to Andrew’s ‘asshole.’ More notable though was the sense that the audience was incredibly hostile to Andrew’s thinking. Which begs a question.

Why should scepticism be treated with hostility by those who profess democracy for all, a trademark characteristic of Web 2.0 technologies? It’s a non-sequitor. Andrew is at pains to point out that his book and thinking are polemic and one sided. A pity others are not so honest. Instead in the utopian world we have a free for all.

Last week, I watched the Century of the Self and The Trap on which I commented in the context of issues around regulation in the 21st century. To me, that view of the world is closely linked to the risks I see as inherent in David’s thinking and those of all who blindly follow. Not everyone agrees. Dan Gillmor thinks of Andrew’s work:

It is a shabby and dishonest treatment of an important topic.

We do face many problems in a digital age, including several of the general issues Keen raises. (I wrote about many of them in my own book three years ago.) We do need to be dealing with those problems.

But when someone seeks, as Keen claims to be doing, to engender a conversation about serious issues, he should base his assertions on reality. Keen’s work doesn’t come close to meeting that standard, as we discover time and again in this volume.

Dan references Lawrence Lessig who concludes that Andrew is a self-parodist saying:

Keen is our generation’s greatest self-parodist. His book is not a criticism of the Internet. Like the article in Nature comparing Wikipedia and Britannica, the real argument of Keen’s book is that traditional media and publishing is just as bad as the worst of the Internet.

That’s a convenient way to write off Andrew’s thinking that’s entirely consistent with Web 2.0 ‘anything goes’ but fails to address the underlying themes Andrew attempts to discuss. This is typical of those who don’t want to hear criticism of ideas.

I view Andrew’s thought stream as having the potential to go much deeper than Lawrence’s critique or Dan’s swipe of the digital pen. While Andrew’s book (I’m almost through reading it – excellent stuff), is not without flaw, largely I suspect because he is taking a one-sided view, he makes plenty of telling points about truth and lies. And this is what worries me.

In all the broo-ha-ha about Web 2.0 I have yet to find a single example where the utopian view of the world is being disruptful in business in any major way. I see things happening at the edge that may spread in time but nothing fundamental is changing. I believe business is only too well aware of the risks and dangers of unfettered critique.

To that extent, I believe that Andrew’s anti-blog/social media position is right. Business is, quite rightly resisting the free for all metality. I attended London Wiki Wednesday last week where someone linked the impact of wiki and blog technology to the democratization of information. It was an excellent debate but one with which I took a diametrically opposing (and almost lone) position. After the meeting, a number of people came up to me and quietly agreed because as business people they know the notion of democracy in business is bunk. Taken to its extreme, it spells the death of leadership and the destruction of shareholder value. I will caveat this with one thought: business will do what it sees as expedient. If that means unleashing unfetterred social media, it will happen.

The conclusion I’ve reached is that while the unfiltered, free for all blog world may be great for exposing the long tail of infinite choice to satisfy micro-demand, enterprise class business is never (and yes, never is a long time) going to allow that to become an intrinsic part of its modus operandi. Any arguments to the contrary are making assumptions about business that fail to reflect reality. For a good example of this kind of thinking, I’d refer readers to Stowe Boyd.

Business depends on a command and control culture to get things done efficiently. It is the other end of the Web 2.0 pendulum swing and for good reason. For a good 80-90% of the time, business is about process and process efficiency. That doesn’t preclude discussion and conversation but a lot of the time, it is about eeking out scarce resources to produce goods and services at the lowest possible cost. That doesn’t happen in a free for all, chaotic and consensual world where truth become blurred.

Even so, while it is always good to foster a culture of criticism, business needs to operate in a controlled, albeit light touch manner. That’s why Sun has no problem with its people blogging but imposes controls on what those same people say. That’s why Andrew’s call for filtering is absolutely essential. It’s also why I believe the Blogtronix 2.0 platform, with its editorial process flow is a good thing.

Sure, lets’ have a freeing up of discussion in the enterprise. Sure, let’s find new ways to collaborate. But please don’t try and convince me that the free for all social media world gets transmuted into the enterprise without considerable amendment or without considerable inherent risk. To that extent I do wish the utopians would shut up and get real.

Technorati Tags: Andrew Keen, David Weinberger, social media, web 2.0

Tagged as: Innovation