Talk:Andrew Keen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Child actor[edit]

According to Andrew Keen on the Ryan Tubridy radio show this morning, the bit about him having been a famous child actor was put in as a hoax by a BBC researcher to show how "unreliable" Wikipedia is. It was added by User:Matthewsweet20007. Rwxrwxrwx 09:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

I added criticism page. Needs no sources so long as argument holds up IMO. Patrick Stewart saying criticizing the guy as narrow minded gives the argument no more credence than anyone else saying it. It is wrong to only present this guy's views as someone reading only this page might be unduly influenced by his argument if not presented with one in opposition. After all, who is Keen but a writer with opinions, like any writer on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger97882 (talkcontribs) 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it again, please see WP:WEASEL. You can't inject your own views into the page. If you can find criticism from a newspaper or other reputable source, that can be included. Pfalstad 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree. This man has no expertise in the field and his word is worth nothing more than anyone else's. His recent fame does not give the positions he holds any more scholarly credence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger97882 (talkcontribs) 07:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Satire?[edit]

After watching the last Report and then checking out this article, I can't help but feel that they're putting forward conflicting messages. The article here makes him come across like he champions the freedom of speech and sharing of opinions that the internet and blogs offer. Yet on the Report he comes across as someone who despises that the average Joe can comment on things freely via the internet (yes he made some valid points I agreed with, like fact checking, but on the whole he seemed pretty against blogging and stuff such as). What's the real message here? Was he being satirical on the Report since it is itself a satire show, or was he serious and I'm misinterpreting the article here? I suppose the title of the book should make it obvious, but I'm still confused. Demaar 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • he clearly didnt understand he should just play it straight against colbert and was very hyperbolic. the bottom line is he does not think wikipedia is even close to replacement for the expert created encyclopedia britannica, blogs arent a replacement for newspapers, and youtube user created content is not a replacement for hollywood, and should these web 2.0 things put those out of business, there will be no way for ordinary people with limited time to seperate the good stuff from the bad, and the good stuff will not be as good because it will have no money behind it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.105.239 (talk) 19:15, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Last night Stephen Colbert was talking about one of the themes of Cult of the Amatuer, that this democratized media is more susceptible to underhanded corporate interests than the old one, specifically Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.105.239 (talk)

  • OK, so I was was misunderstanding what this guy does then, it seems. Thanks for the clarification. I can somewhat see his point, but I very much doubt these things will come to replace their money-backed counterparts. Anywho, didn't someone on some show (either TDS or CR) say that Wikipedia actually has a high accuracy rating or something? Will have to rewatch the episode and check. Demaar 16:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected[edit]

Gosh, there's no rage like the rage of nerdy bloggers with nothing better to do then respond to criticism in the fine and upstanding manner we expect of them. Article semiprotected, probably forever. Neil  09:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your talents are wasted here. I think Two and a Half Men have some openings for writers. Neil  09:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is this guy?[edit]

:What's wrong with being an elitist? I'll tell you: the main problem arises when you are an elitist but you miss the requirements to qualify for the elite level. JBarreto 18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think we should have an article on him, nominate it for deletion (though it seems to have enough sources for me). We have too much forum-like discussion here as it is. Richard001 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it ironic how people that espouses freedom and anti-censorship would attempt to delete and censor such a person. This is a distinguished person who has published a book with a compelling argument. Just because you don't agree with his viewpoint, along with I suppose the majority of the Wikipedians, should not warrant a censorship. Then again, for Wikipedians, truth is defined collectively instead of something that is objective and fair. 24.174.58.24 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not define the truth. It simply presents facts from different points of view. You don't even know what you're criticizing. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cult of the Amateur[edit]

Should there be a separate article on his book, going into a little more detail of its content? There seems to be several newspaper articles that have reported on it, so it would probably pass the notability requirements. Richard001 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No there shouldn't be, even if there was an article, it'd probably be overly biased (like all of Wikipedia) and skewed against him with the criticism section accounting for 90% of the article. Then again, we should create it in order reinforce Keen's argument about the biasness, inaneness, and stupidity of Wikipedia (and Web2.0) itself. Wikipedia shouldn't even be classified as an encyclopedia anyway. 24.174.58.24 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That's bias and inanity, not "biasness" and "inaneness". If you think so highly of Keen, then why don't you follow his example and write under your name, rather than do so anonymously? Quiensabe (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the article as it stands regarding the Web 2.0 commentary - in my read I didnt really catch whether this guy is for or against Web 2.0 and the leveling of the playing field? That should be made clearer. Overheal ([User talk:Overheal|talk]) 02:28, 3 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.113.92 (talk)

Tenor of Talk:Andrew Keen[edit]

The comments on this talk page seem to violate Wikipedia policies posted above, specifically: Be Polite, No Personal Attacks, Be Welcoming. It seems to me these sorts of comments only support critics of Wikipedia and its community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.14.250 (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Same author[edit]

Is this the same author that writes for the Independent (eg. this), Guardian et al? —Sladen (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. He cross-posts these op-eds on his blog, such as here. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nationality[edit]

Does he currently hold British citizenship, American, or both? F W Nietzsche (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace[edit]

Is anyone else enjoying the rich irony that Keen's birthplace in this article is given as Golden Hampstead, a place that doesn't exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.61.208 (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, Vandalism introduced[1] on 2009-01-11 and now removed[2]. Once again, thank you! —Sladen (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section again[edit]

There is only one quote in the criticism section. The section itself does not explain why the quote is significant or why the reader should value the opinion of the person giving the quote. A stand-alone quote without any other information is more of an attack than a serious criticism. If the section isn't fixed, I'm going to remove it again. As it stands now, the section is inappropriate for a encyclopedia and for the biography of a living person. 24.155.69.129 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You're doubtless right that there's probably a lot more criticism to be found on this guy, but the particular documentary has appeared on national television and is widely available online. It seems to be a reliable source for the opinions of Tim O'Reilly who is in himself a notable person as well, and his comments have been editorially controlled by the documentary writer; and the writer included quite a lot of Andrew Keen's theories. To be honest IMO the article is already overbalanced with positive things about Andrew Keen.- Wolfkeeper 01:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Colbert Report[edit]

Let's be serious here. A joke made on a comedy show should not be taken as a serious criticism, especially when Keen has expressed on record that it's ridiculous that the section existed. There is only one reference, which is a primary one to Comedy Central, not to a secondary source discussing his opinions. Including this kind of hyperbole when it's meant in jest is not really appropriate, and that goes double for a BLP. Steven Walling 18:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to leave it out; I'm also happy to have it in. I'll just add some thoughts here.
Keen correctly criticized this entry for taking what was obviously a joke and treating it as if it were his serious opinion. A while back, I softened it by correctly noting that it was just a joke. And when Steven took it out the first time, I didn't complain about that either. The points you make, Steven, are valid ones, regarding it being potentially OR as the only source is primary.
At the same time, Keen does a lot of public speaking and he is known at least partly as a humorous guy. (I've met him a few times, debated him twice, and he does have a sharp wit.) One argument for inclusion is to show that he does have a sense of humor, and that if you read about him saying something transparently outrageous, he may not have meant it literally. That's probably important for a reader to understand. It's relevant, I think, to understanding his career in its totality. That is, he isn't a dry academic stiff, he's a witty guy.
On the other hand, without a third party reliable source noting it, it may simply not be worthy of inclusion at all. In general, and see the discussion at Talk:Wendy Diamond for an example, I'm generally opposed to including random remarks that people make on a television program, unless it can be shown that it illustrates something important. In this case, I think it does illustrate something important, but perhaps there's a better way to document it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
This might be venturing even further into OR, but if it was re-added perhaps it would best to add a citation to the debate video where it's discussed. That way at least readers get the full context. I still think it should be left out, since one Colbert Report joke is probably not the best judge of his opinions about Wikipedia, which he has discussed at length in his writing. Steven Walling 17:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. Upon further reflection, I'd say that the whole thing should probably be left out. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No, he's been interviewed on PBS about it, if we don't allow interview material in the Wikipedia, what do we allow? Are we removing material in an attempt to create NPOV, or are we adding material to create NPOV? It seems to me adding more material is nearly always correct.- Wolfkeeper 15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it is "nearly always" correct to add material to get to NPOV. But in this case, adding a joke which will give the wrong impression of the man's views, is clearly not correct at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I second Jimbo's sentiments. Additionally, including hyperbolic jokes as a representation (even in context) of his views about Wikipedia plays directly into Keen's own critical characterization of Wikipedia. Steven Walling 00:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No, we're supposed to be capturing all significant aspects of the topic, whether or not doing so makes the Wikipedia looks bad. It's called neutrality. If he told a significant joke, and he did, then we should be including that. The problem with the article is that it's too short, and therefore lacks contextualisation.- Wolfkeeper 00:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I also don't find that he was entirely joking, while he certainly wasn't literally comparing with Nazis, the joke was intended to illuminate his views about it putting certain types of people out of work.- Wolfkeeper 01:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced[edit]

I'm not entirely convinced that the Tim O'Reilly quote is optimal. Wolfkeeper said that OR is when you combine 2 or more sources, but that's not correct. OR can take many forms, one of which is to selectively pull a quote that isn't notable. This one arguably is, so I didn't remove it, but more thought and discussion is probably warranted.

I did add a link to the original source of the quote, on Youtube. I don't have a lot of experience with ref tags, so I think I did it in a lame way. Hopefully someone with more experience at that can tidy it up.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wellllll, I think the article is probably better balanced with some criticism in it. I'm still standing by my point of view that the article should be about 2 or 3 times bigger, and then including quotes like these would probably be less likely to give the appearance of being non neutral. Clearly, removing all criticism would certainly seem to be non neutral in the opposite direction.- Wolfkeeper 17:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about the O'Reilly quote and would be fine with seeing it go. It's better to avoid sourcing that kind of thing to films anyway, since the availability of any particular video on YouTube is unpredictable at best. There's got to be some great counterpoints to Keen in say, reviews of his books, though that might be better suited to any articles about the books themselves. Steven Walling 21:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
We don't decide what to include based on availability, it would be a valid source whether or not it was in youtube. Youtube is just convenience. The youtube link is not the reference, the documentary itself is. In any case, it's been verified twice now.- Wolfkeeper 22:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we do prefer sources where the verification is available online. There are plenty of sources visible online that are reliable and critical of Keen's ideas. Making verification transparent to our readers is a priority, especially for a controversial biography of a living person. Steven Walling 05:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of referenceable reliable source material is not available online, and even when it is online, we don't necessarily want to link to it due to copyright issues.- Wolfkeeper 18:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we're veering off in to the theoretical rather than the practical, but my point was that I don't think one quote sourced to a YouTube vid is the ideal one to use to rebut Keen. Jimmy suggested removing the quote, and I agree considering that there are plenty of other reliable published sources that counter Keen's ideas. Steven Walling 07:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)