Talk:Andrew Keen

Child actor

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Satire?

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)

In the end if a corporation wants to pay people to edit wikipedia to their liking then all the regular people arent gonna be able to keep up with that. and if no one buys encylopedia britannica, or newspapers, then they will die, and the blogs which steal their content from newspapers, will be completely out of any even slightly accountable information to blatantly twist to their open bias demographic and then perhaps will just make stuff up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.105.239 (talk) 17:36, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

oh yeah, if the corporate were to disappear, it would be the end of the truth itself, nice try Andrew, but we knew it was you when you said "blogs which steal their content from newspapers", a fictitious concept, (how can you "steal" a news or a fact) , you *might* get away with calling it "stealing" opinions but non-retarded persons call it "agreeing" if corporate america wants to pay robots to dump their propaganda on wikipedia, don't be so sure we won't be able to keep up, (not only will we keep up, but it'll get back in the face of said corporation in the form of really bad publicity) the era of paying for content is at an END, paying for alignements of 0s and 1s was ludicrous in the first place !! 207.253.74.149 08:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think user User:24.10.105.239 should be ignored. His comments for "Talk:Autistic Pride Day" are: "can i make up a holiday and put an article on it." And he edited the article List of former European colonies‎ to say: "North America - canada never became independant of the british empire." --70.77.37.70 02:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected

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 ム 09:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Well said, Mr. Ma in Katakana - you did well to have your butler type that in as you dictated it. As I was saying to my butler this morning as he washed me, the rabble must be put in its place. Best to just delete this article entirely. After all, Mr. Keen isn't being *paid* for it. The unwashed amateurs at Wikipedia are *stealing* from him! You should listen to Neil Ma in Katakana here, along with me and Mr. Keen. We're clearly your elite betters. Thank you, Jeeves, that will be all the typing required from you today. No, don't type that. You clod, I said don't type that. Must I remove your hands from that infernal keyboard myself? Oh, very well;p[]\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.186.163 (talk) 01:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

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

Who the hell is this guy?

The quality of Keen's arguments is not even high enough to a Wikipedia discussion page. And the guy is a truly reactionary dummy, one of those who see communists under every bush. He is politically and culturally a reactionary and tries to make a living of that. We are in the 21th century, dammit! JBarreto 17:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

He's a schmuck but he's a notable schmuck.

He's notable mostly for his stupid attacks on Wikipedia. (There's lots to criticize about Wikipedia, but his criticsims are stupid.)

We need to have this page for the benefit of people who will say, "Who is this idiot?" and search Google.

There will be a lot of those people. Nbauman (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Cult of the Amateur

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)

Hi Keen! 122.57.140.56 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 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

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

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

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

The Internet makes us Nazi's

He literally believes expanding internet access will make us all nazi's http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/15921.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.63.219 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace

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

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)