I believe that the cult of web 2.0 has brought with it a culture of information democracy, and that in many ways this has decentralised power from the “establishment” and brought it to the “people”… dependent on how you interpret those definitions. This has had more effect in certain areas than others, in business for example, web 2.0 has brought about a massive change in customers relationships to businesses, no longer does the consumer have no voice. There have been numerous examples of reputations being severely damaged by the actions (often blogs) of just a few unhappy customers – think Dell for a moment…
In politics I think there has been less physical examples of democratisation of information as a result of web 2.0. Unfortunately all too often in areas of the world where this democratisation and freedom information is desperately needed (the name China springs to mind amongst others) it is held back from the people and many digital information activists opposing this are arrested or far worse. This withstanding I think that the potential and scope for political transparency through freedom of information is there.
However it is (unsurprisingly) the world of media where web 2.0 and the freedom of information and culture of community and participation where the most change has been felt. Power has shifted from the so called gatekeepers of media, the “establishment” – newspaper editors, record producers, journalists to the “people”… and who are these “people”… well as contrived and overused as it may sound they are the kids (and adult kids) making videos on youtube, unsigned bands putting their music online and all those contributors to wikipedia, amongst many others.
It is wikipedia, perhaps one of the most iconic examples of a web 2.0 application where the focus of the Dutch filmmaker IJsbrand van Veelen recent documentary lies. It questions whether this “information democracy” created by web 2.0 in general (but focusing on wikipedia) is actually benefiting society, or whether it is detrimental. The main protagonist toward this viewpoint in the film is Andrew Keens, author of The Cult of the Amateur who argues that web 2.0 is creating an individualistic society where truth has become a personal viewpoint not an absolute fact. The evangelists of web 2.0 such as Tim O’Reilly and the Wikipedia founders Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales amongst others dispute this and the very notion of the absolute truth; is this not constantly evolving, just like wikipedia?
However what is interesting to me here is that although it is just focusing on one specific application (wikipedia) the argument is really a wider one between two ideals that have been conflicting for the last fifty years; liberalism and socialism. On one side lies chaos and genius and on the other lies order and education… it is the rebels vs the establishment…
Watch the full documentary here:
