Talk:Andrew Keen

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?

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)

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)

colbert

just made an idiot out of himself on colbert (thursday, august 16)

• I just saw that. What a douche.
• 300th episode too...the douchebag came off as lacking knowledge as well as class.

Wow, just discovered this article after watching Mr. Keen on the The Colbert Report. He came across as very cold and bitter, bitter that the internet is a democratic venue where the ordinary citizen can exercise his or her right to free speech. Can someone please write a criticism section for this elitist (insert insult here). Ohh and he also said he "loathes" Wikipedia. --Tocino 17 August 2007, 05:03 (UTC)

I just saw that myself...didn't exactly do such a great job making his case, did he? Just sat there sneering. You know, this is one of those things that really ticks me off, the perception that because most of us Wikipedians are not "certified Experts," then we are necessarily stupid and can't synthesize information from secondary sources. I second the creation of a "criticism" section, if for no better reason, then because I'm annoyed at him. K. Lásztocska 04:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He was such a complete douche that Colbert actually cut the interview short. I couldn't believe when Colbert, attempting to set up a "liberal ivory tower" joke, asked him "Doesn't that make you an elitist?" and he actually replied, deadpan, "What's wrong with that?" I have never wanted so much to stab somebody in the eye before. Gregly 19:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Gregly: I know! What a douchebag! I loved it when he said "even the Nazis didn't put artists out of work". Someone's never heard of Degenerate art. PerryPlanet 20:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

why do you people sneer at trained certified experts who dedicate their lives to whatever subject, getting years of education and experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.105.239 (talk) 18:49, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

I just saw the interview. This man comes off as quite bitter and very unknowledgeable about what the internet is and is capable of. He comes across to me as the kind of guy who thinks only rich people should appreciate art, and that the printing press is dangerous because it'll allow ordinary people to read the Bible without having a priest to interpret it for them. --70.77.37.70 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Keen knows more about the internet than you. Don't forget that. --69.17.164.159 05:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Can you prove that? 67.36.191.238 05:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

69.17.164.159 is being sarcastic after what Keen said on the show. That's actually pretty funny. 24.59.148.187 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but he didn't actually demostrate it on the Colbert Report. In fact, he didn't really prove anything except that he's an idiot. 67.36.191.238 05:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that. :) 24.59.148.187 06:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what his point is. Perhaps he has one but couldn't articulate it. He said something about people losing money, about people using blogs to forward the corporate agendas (how does that make them amateur then?). I guess what I wonder is, what is at the end of this argument? He wants to "end" the internet? Restrict access? I doubt he is that dumb. In any case, I guess I'll never know. He had several minutes to sell me his book and he failed. Compare this to Christopher Hitchens who totally sold me his book when he was on Stewart's show. Jackbox1971 07:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was really interested in figuring out what this guy was all about so I checked out his blog and then I made a point of listening to an extended interview with him on my local NPR station. I feel I have a much better grasp of Keen's critque:

1. He believes that filtered media is superior and preferable to un-filtered (i.e. "anyone can be a journalist") because it is more professional.

2. Professionaism is lost when anyone can write an article on wikipedia because you can't alway trust that the information has been vetted.

3. Authority goes with professionalism. The filter is essentially an agent of authority and when it comes to journalism it is important that the information is well vetted. In his words, you wouldn't want a "citizen-surgeon" or a "citizen-car-mechanic" so why would you want a "citizen-journalist"?

4. He does not hate wikipedia and often finds many of the technical articles well-done. Rather, he feels wikipedia is a symptom of an overall culture-of-the-amateur that is running rampent.

5. Media literacy should be taught in schools. (Whatever that means. If you want to teach critical thinking, call it that!)

Now, I don't agree with his premise, nor do I feel this is the best place to debate his points (hmmm... maybe I'll star a BLOG!) but did want to suggest that there is more to Keen than what came out on Colbert. I would nail him for not being a good guest but I think he does offer a valuable cultural critique. Considering that most books about the internet are gushing love-letters to the technology, it is kind of refreshing to find someone who is will to suggest that things may not be as rosy as some make it out to be. Jackbox1971 01:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

When Colbert accused him of wanting an elite level of people above the lower class "pig farmers" Keen jumped at the idea. What type of person is "keen" on living in feudalism? TophZilla 20:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Came across to me as a totally arrogant, self-righteous snob.

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.

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.

This guy shows me why the world is becoming stupider and stupider. Because of "experts" who think people are idiots because they won't listen to them and then start forcing children/others thinking that they are right. I love how he trys telling Colbert that the internet told people that there is WMDs in IRAQ, and Colbert replies "No the president told me". Keen should be arrested for fraud, claiming he is an expert when he has no clue what he is talking about.125.70.222.81 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As Mr. Keen is a non expert on technology or media, or even a well respected peer of either field, I find him arrogant, uneducated and lacking a cohesive argument. He sounds like just another person attacking a revolution such as the internet, Web 2.0 ect.. because he fails to understand how and why they've become profitable (not to mention so widely necessary to the survival and expansion of democracy) and threatens existing business models. 74.108.32.83 01:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've watched the episode three times now, different sittings, amazed by his total and unabashed arrogance. His posture, his method of questioning, and his complete unwillingness to play along are almost as extraordinary as Colbert's ability to smack him down every time he set up a line of questioning. "Do you believe there were weapons of mass destruction? Where did you learn that?" I'm sorry, British people, but you're no longer allowed to look down your nose at me because I'm the arrogant American. Now, looking down on me because I'm from New Jersey, that's still kosher. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.133.229.226 (talk) 04:07:45, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

he makes a brilliant argument, colbert is not the proper format for his polemic though four minutes was not nearly enough time. you have no idea if i am andrew keen himself promoting his own book theres no accountability on this anarchistic mob rule web 2.0

• I see you've taken to editing Wikipedia, Mr. Keen. I understand you loathe this medium- does that mean it's okay to aggrandize yourself in it, or what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.133.229.226 (talk) 19:49:10, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
• i'm not really mr keen but he makes good points about trading the dictatorship of experts with years of training and experience and accountability with the dictatorship of an idiotic mob. the idea truth by consensus of a mob all posessing their own ideas of truth, going into their own sheltered communities where they dont need to be exposed to other ideas. whereas the newspaper was a common jumping off point for everyone. and even now the newspaper can be held accountable, there is no one to be held accountable here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.105.239 (talk) 22:32:09, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

2"even the Nazis didn't put artists out of work" (see above): This may very well be the most interesting quote from the segment, yet the article only articulates that he loathes Wikipedia, something which may have been left unexplained in the show but otherwise is in line with what Andrew Keen has said before, e.g. in his book, and thus not very interesting. Shinobu 23:53, 19 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)

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)