28ab Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part I -Britannica Blog

Top Categories

Navigation

Blog Forums
Election 2008
War With Iran? Founders & Faith
Web 2.0
Cult of Celebrity

Recent Authors

About this Blog

Britannica Blog is a place for smart, lively conversations about a broad range of topics. Art, science, history, current events – it’s all grist for the mill. We’ve given our writers encouragement and a lot of freedom, so the opinions here are theirs, not the company’s. Please jump in and add your own thoughts.

Feeds

Recent Comments

The life of the mind in the age of Web 2.0 suffers, in many ways, from an increase in credulity and an associated flight from expertise. Bloggers are called “citizen journalists”; alternatives to Western medicine are increasingly popular, though we can thank our stars there is no discernable “citizen surgeon” movement; millions of Americans are believers in Biblical inerrancy—the belief that every word in the Bible is both true and the literal word of God, something that, among other things, pits faith against carbon dating; and, scientific truths on such matters as medical research, accepted by all mainstream scientists, are rejected by substantial numbers of citizens and many in politics.

Cartoonist Garry Trudeau’s Dr. Nathan Null, “a White House Situational Science Adviser,” tells us that: “Situational science is about respecting both sides of a scientific argument, not just the one supported by facts.” This is satire, of course, but hardly too broad in a time when school boards aim “intelligent design” (creationism with lipstick on) at the minds of schoolchildren and powerful interests deny the very existence of catastrophic human-caused global climate change. These are evidence of a tide of credulity and misinformation that can only be countered by a culture of respect for authenticity and expertise in all scholarly, research, and educational endeavors.

The Spanish artist Goya (1746-1828) experienced the turmoil of the Napoleonic years and the war that ravaged Europe, including Spain. His vision included a private world of nightmares. One of the most famous products of this vision was the etching Number 43 of the series Los caprichos (The Caprices, 1799); the etching is called El Sueño de la Razon Produce Monstruos (”The sleep of reason brings forth monsters”). Goya is widely credited with having the clairvoyance of genius, and this image of the sleeping artist surrounded by the winged ghoulies and beasties unleashed by unreason has been seen as a prediction of, and warning about, the state of civilization in the two hundred years since.

I know about this etching partly because I read about it decades ago and partly because I recently went to authoritative printed sources for confirmation of what I had read and for additional information and insights. These reference works were not only created by scholars and published by reputable publishers but also contained the paratextual elements (subject headings, indexes, bibliographies, content lists, etc.) also created by professionals that enabled me to find the recorded knowledge and information I wanted in seconds.

This small example typifies the difference between the print world of scholarly and educational publishing and the often-anarchic world of the Internet. The difference is in the authenticity and fixity of the former (that its creator is reputable and it is what it says it is), the expertise that has given it credibility, and the scholarly apparatus that makes the recorded knowledge accessible on the one hand and the lack of authenticity, expertise, and complex finding aids in the latter. The difference is not, emphatically not, in the communication technology involved. Print does not necessarily bestow authenticity, and an increasing number of digital resources do not, by themselves, reflect an increase in expertise. The task before us is to extend into the digital world the virtues of authenticity, expertise, and scholarly apparatus that have evolved over the 500 years of print, virtues often absent in the manuscript age that preceded print.

Human beings learn, essentially, in only two ways. They learn from experience—the oldest and earliest type of learning—and they learn from people who know more than they do. The second kind of learning comes from either personal contact with living people—teachers, gurus, etc.—or through interaction with the human record, that vast assemblage of texts, images, and symbolic representations that have come to us from the past and is being added to in the present. It is this latter way of learning that is under threat in the realm of digital resources.

It is under threat because, to be successful, it depends on the authenticity of the connection between the teacher/researcher/author who has created a part of the human record and the person who wishes to learn from the study of that part. That connection is authentic only if certain conditions are met. The conditions necessary for learning from a text include a reasonable certainty that the text is what it says it is—that its content is what was created by a named person or persons or is a good-faith translation of that original text by a named person or persons; that the authors possess verifiable credentials and demonstrable expertise; that the learner has knowledge of the date when that text was created and can, therefore, take into account any later developments or discoveries; that the learner possesses the reading skills to interact productively with a complex text; and that the text has a context—that is, its relationships with other texts are set out in the form of citations and bibliographic references. If one thinks of such a learning transaction in terms of someone reading, say, a paper in the proceedings of a scholarly conference, a paper in a scholarly journal, or an article in an authoritative encyclopedia, it is easy to see not only that each of these conditions can and do exist in a print culture but that they could and, in some cases, do exist in the digital world.

But there are obstacles to such a benign outcome, and I’ll tackle these obstacles in Part II of this blog tomorrow.

1f44



96 Responses to “Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part I”

  1. Pattern Recognition » Gorman, again Says:

    […] Karen Schneider twittered the latest Michael Gorman insanity, written on (no surprise here) the Britannica Blog. Long time readers of this blog might remember that I’ve publicly disagreed with Gorman on a number of things, and this latest rant isn’t any different. […]

  2. Information Wants To Be Free » Blog Archive » Respect my Authority Says:

    […] When I read Michael Gorman’s two-part blog post (yes, I said blog post; if that isn’t the height of irony…) to respect the wisdom of the expert over the wisdom of the crowd, I thought of two people: Ayn Rand and Eric Cartman. The piece had all of Ayn Rand’s black-and-white, either-or thinking as well as her use of hyperbole. I’ll let the picture explain why I thought of Cartman. […]

  3. the goblin in the library › Gorman With the Wind Says:

    […] The biggest irony in Michael Gorman’s two-part blog post entitled “Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason” (part I and part II) is that he clearly doesn’t understand how the internet (including, but in no way limited to, Wikipedia) works, or he’s willfully misrepresenting how it works in order to make his point. Whichever the case, it means that he’s not an authoritative, reliable source, and his writings on the matter cannot be trusted. […]

  4. Dean Giustini Says:

    I think “the life of the mind” suffers under Michael Gorman. Your argument(s) would have greater force if you would deign to use some concrete examples. Your younger colleagues (such as those who commented before me) are bloggers with interesting points to make and share with their colleagues - is that why we are suffering so? In the case of Ms. Farkas, she has published a book of ideas, all from her own perspective. Why not avoid the generalizations and stop writing ‘for effect’. It was fine when you were ALA President, but it’s worn thin.

  5. Lee LeBlanc Says:

    Perhaps be more open to how people really use information & accept the imperfection of information use.

  6. A Blog from Britannica Should Know Better (or, Gorman is blogging?) : David Lee King Says:

    […] So… MG is blogging. (Reader: Hmm… didn’t he coin the term “blog people” a couple years ago about those people who “read what they want to read rather than what is in front of them… ?” David: Yep. Same dude.). Upon first read, I wanted to pick apart his two posts bit by bit. And then it dawned on me - I don’t have to. Instead, I can complain about the Britannica Blog! […]

  7. Gorman vs. the straw-people « John Miedema Says:

    […] June 13th, 2007 This week Michael Gorman posted an article in the Britannica Blog: Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part I and Part 2. Thanks Jessamyn West. […]

  8. Many-to-Many Says:

    Old Revolutions Good, New Revolutions Bad: A Response to Gorman

    Encyclopedia Britannica has started a Web 2.0 Forum, where they are hosting a conversation going on around a set of posts by Michael Gorman. The first post, in two parts, is titled Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason Brings Forth…

  9. Sridhar Vembu Says:

    I will agree about 80% with you, with some caveats when you refer to (unnamed) “alternatives to western medicine”. It is not clear which “alternatives” you are referring to (is Yoga one of them?), but everything in that vast universe is not junk. In fact, we are starting to realize there is some wisdom in many of the older schools of the east.

  10. LibrarySupportStaff.Org » Michael Gorman’s Sleep of Reason Says:

    […] Michael Gorman, former president of ALA, has riled up some people with his posts on Britannica Blog titled Web 2.0 : The Sleep of Reason (part I) and (part II). […]

  11. J Says:

    I find it ironic that Mr. Gorman chose a blog to post another one of his pompous, myopic rants about the evils of modern U.S. culture.

  12. Boing Boing Says:

    Michael Gorman’s anti-Internet rant

    Clay Shirky says: Over at the Britannica weblog, Michael Gorman, the former American Library Ass’n head, has an anti-internet rant entitled “Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason Brings Forth Monsters”, to which a number of of us have now replied: “The succ…

  13. John Edward Campbell Says:

    Just as ontogeny recapitulates philogeny, the social evolution of our species mocks the social evolution of the individual, sometimes cruelly. We are in the adolescent stage of our social evolution. We are desperate to be free from the authority that has ruled us since we became “civilized”. We also haven’t quite developed the social skills necessary to live our lives without conflict. We’re often angry, sometimes rude and spend way too much time thinking about sex. That’s what adolescents do. It’s also how they grow up to be responsible adults. It’s a constant struggle as we test our own abilities and evaluate the results. Throughout history, authoritarian figures have tried to cram us back into the nursery by legislating morality and suppressing creativity. Frankly, the idea that we can only learn from those who have been sanctified by self-serving certification boards or institutions of higher learning (or adolescent storage facilities, as I call them) is not that different from the idea that women need men to think for them or that it’s the role of white men to civilize the little, dark people. Although expertise is very welcome, self-appointed parents are not. We’re not going back to censorship, to legislated morality, to condescension and patronage. We will learn from our own experiences. We will make mistakes. But we will not go back.

  14. Larry Tate Says:

    I started reading your link on ‘Goya’, then wanted to learn more about ‘aquatint’, but I had to sign up for a free trial…so I went to Wikipedia.

  15. R.John Says:

    Wikipedia allows for students to cut and paste entire articles into their reports and papers, this is quite an innovation to the old pen to paper plagerism that we used to do with the print verisons.

    Thats the only innovation here.

  16. Web 2.0 vs Michael Gorman « JPLL 2.0 Says:

    […] Michael Gorman’s original posts […]

  17. KipEsquire Says:

    “we can thank our stars there is no discernable ‘citizen surgeon’ movement”

    That is exactly the right observation, but for exactly the wrong reason.

    It is precisely the fact that occupational journalists are not “professionals” on the same plane with physicians (or nurses, attorneys, veterinarians, accountants or even optometrists) that is finally being exposed by blogging.

    Occupational journalists face no mandatory educational curricula. They face no licensing examinations, no continuing education requirements, and need not subscribe to any legally binding code of ethics.

    The very fact that occupational journalists often cannot see the difference between a journalist and a surgeon is why they are increasingly being ignored. They are not credentialed — and it drives them batty that laypersons no longer see any need afford them the respect that they afford the true (i.e., credentialed) professions.

    Incidentally, are occupational librarians closer to occupational journalists or to professional physicians? The answer explains your rant.

    1f4f
  18. Seth Finkelstein Says:

    Surgery is rare and often scary - many people don’t like blood, while ranting is very easy. I think the better analogy is quack medicine, which has a lot of the same patterns - the same scamming appeal that YOU know better than the EXPERTS, the same substitution of good-tasting nonsense for plainer but substantial fare, the same problem that being taken in by it can be very dangerous to your health.

  19. Jared Says:

    These 17 responses, many of them quite interesting could never happen if this blog post had been published in a journal.
    With that being said I find it quite insincere to equate bloggers, and the youtube culture of today to creationists. A quick look at the top videos on youtube will show that Atheists, and Scientists resoundingly get the benefit of the doubt because they can back up their findings with science. The biggest threat to creationism is public dialog, and that’s not going to happen in print media, it will happen on the internet.

  20. Mike not far from Portland Says:

    Now, does “the sleep of reason brings forth monsters” mean that when reason is asleep it brings forth monsters, or does it mean that reason itself is a sleep that brings forth monsters?

    I’ve heard it quoted to support either interpretation.

    Just asking.

  21. Jeff Z Says:

    It strikes me that the reputations of those “authors possess[ing] verifiable credentials and demonstrable expertise” would not suffer in the least bit if they were to publish their expert information online, with all available annotation, provenance and context, in competition with the “anarchic” sources of perhaps-not-so-well-pedigreed information currently extant.

    I believe, in fact, that the inestimable quality of that vast body of canonical work would have the effect of providing a truly authoritative reference against which any other “wild” Internet source of information can be instantly checked and properly challenged if inaccurate.

    Were encyclopediae not invented to allow the general population to access the sum of human knowledge (or at least as much as could be crammed into a set of books)?

    I suspect the per-click advertising revenue on such a respected, non-controversial authoritative source would be rather staggering. Surely it wouldn’t take long for such experienced researchers to investigate that possibility?

    Please try something new; the world still needs your authoritative knowledge, and you are in danger of losing the world’s interest at a time when you could instead be firing and feeding it. We want your expertise, please share it.

  22. Brian Carnell Says:

    It is fascinating that the beginning of Gorman’s essay ridicules Bibilical literalists, whereas the end asserts that only a certain priesthood of formalized academics are fit to interpret the various cultural texts he has in mind.

    His take on creationism and global warming skepticism is fascinating, in that it quite clearly calls for individuals to abandon their own reasoning faculties in favor of simple blind obedience to this or that “expert.”

    But, this is the problem, not the solution. I doubt many people who tell pollsters they don’t believe in evolution have ever extensively researched the topic themselves. Rather, they are taking their cues from others they recognize as authorities (typically religious in nature).

  23. David HM Spector Says:

    How prescient:

    “New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, ‘Why then are you not taking part in them?’”
    –H. G. Wells

  24. Nathan Jongewaard Says:

    Why is this essay being called “anti-internet” by Shirky via Boing-Boing? I have not found anything in Gorman’s piece that qualifies for that description. Criticism is not the same as condemnation. Gorman seems to suggest that there’s no reason the tools of the Web cannot be used creatively for the authoritative dissemination of information, simply that this is often not how they’re being used.

  25. The Invisible Library » Blog Archive » Gorman Rants, Again Says:

    […] Michael Gorman, self appointed Poobah of the Kranky Old Geezers of the Library World, has a new rant up about how the Internet and blogs are making us stupid at, of all places, the Britannica Blog. He starts off with a straw man so huge, the denizens of a small island off the coast of Scotland have already gathered around it, stuffed it with Edward Woodward and are fetching the torches as we speak: “The life of the mind in the age of Web 2.0 suffers, in many ways, from an increase in credulity and an associated flight from expertise. Bloggers are called ‘citizen journalists’; alternatives to Western medicine are increasingly popular, though we can thank our stars there is no discernable ‘citizen surgeon’ movement; millions of Americans are believers in Biblical inerrancy—the belief that every word in the Bible is both true and the literal word of God, something that, among other things, pits faith against carbon dating; and, scientific truths on such matters as medical research, accepted by all mainstream scientists, are rejected by substantial numbers of citizens and many in politics. […]”

  26. Seth Finkelstein Says:

    @Nathan - It’s being called “anti-Internet” because the easiest way to discredit someone who doesn’t go along with the program is to paint them as being anti-technology. If being pro-technology equivalences to whatever brand of populist snake-oil the evangelist is peddling, then critics of the quackery can be dismissed as anti-technology.

    20ed
  27. Much food for thought from Britannica » mathewingram.com/work Says:

    […] Gorman’s post is a relatively long treatise on the shortcomings of the Web 2.0 phenomenon, looking at how it cheapens social discourse and results in a “flight from expertise” (much like Andrew Keen’s “cult of the amateur” — and Keen also shows up in the Britannica salon). I’m going to go back and read Gorman’s post as well in more depth, but if this kind of thing interests you at all, they’re probably both worth a read. society, Web2.0 | Share This | Related links […]

  28. Teaching Better With Web 2.0 » Britannica vs. Web 2.0? Says:

    […] I learned early on in this journey from men such as Will Richardson, Alan November, and David Warlick that this dichotomy is exactly what makes it so urgent to develop critical, responsible users, and to empower them with skills that are far from new, but all-to-often neglected. Keen’s fellow Britannica blogger, Michael Gorman (Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part I and Part II), while an enthusiastic critic of Web 2.0, actually expresses a very similar perspective: “This small example typifies the difference between the print world of scholarly and educational publishing and the often-anarchic world of the Internet. The difference is in the authenticity and fixity of the former (that its creator is reputable and it is what it says it is), the expertise that has given it credibility, and the scholarly apparatus that makes the recorded knowledge accessible on the one hand and the lack of authenticity, expertise, and complex finding aids in the latter. The difference is not, emphatically not, in the communication technology involved. Print does not necessarily bestow authenticity, and an increasing number of digital resources do not, by themselves, reflect an increase in expertise. The task before us is to extend into the digital world the virtues of authenticity, expertise, and scholarly apparatus that have evolved over the 500 years of print, virtues often absent in the manuscript age that preceded print.” […]

  29. John Connell: the blog » Blog Archive » The Arrogant Imperium Says:

    […] Leading the charge is Michael Gorman. In his posts, “The Sleep of Reason” (Part I and Part II), he cites: “…evidence of a tide of credulity and misinformation that can only be countered by a culture of respect for authenticity and expertise in all scholarly, research, and educational endeavors.” […]

  30. Chrononautic Log 改 » Blog Archive » Civilization/Wales Says:

    […] Various folks have linked to”The Sleep of Reason,” a post on the Brittanica blog (did you know Brittanica had a blog?) from conservative librarian Michael Gorman, in which he blames the participatory Internet (a.k.a. “Web 2.0″) for, among other things: an increase in credulity and an associated flight from expertise. Bloggers are called “citizen journalists”; alternatives to Western medicine are increasingly popular… millions of Americans are believers in Biblical inerrancy — the belief that every word in the Bible is both true and the literal word of God, something that, among other things, pits faith against carbon dating; and, scientific truths on such matters as medical research, accepted by all mainstream scientists, are rejected by substantial numbers of citizens and many in politics. […]

  31. John Connell: the blog » Blog Archive » The Cult of the Exepert Says:

    […] And now Meredith Farkas has weighed in on Michael Gorman’s Sleep of Reason. She takes a potshot at the ‘Cult of the Expert’ (my own paraphrase). As she writes: “The main point where I disagree with Gorman is his idea that the expert is necessarily to be trusted.” […]

  32. rushmc Says:

    The only real change here is that authority must now compete with everyone else, rather than holding a privileged position. The fact that it is floundering in many cases–some of which you cite–suggests to me more that authority is doing a very poor job than that it is inherently incapable of standing against the barbarians at the gate and needs to be propped up. Journalists are a perfect example of a category of expert that has squandered its claim to special legitimacy, and the limitations of “citizen journalists” may prove preferable to the cowardice and profit motive of the professionals.

  33.   The power and peril of blogs - Family Man Librarian Says:

    […] Second, my general point here is, calm down folks and try to get some perspective!  T. Scott Plutchak writes about this in his blog and combines this perspective with discussion of another controversial blog post by Michael Gorman.  T. Scott’s tone is welcome.  He also makes the following point: “We are really still at the very beginnings of figuring out the best ways to engage in discourse using all of these new tools.” […]

  34. Smitherines Says:

    […] Posted by smitherines on June 14th, 2007 Michael Gorman has just posted a couple of items to the Britannnica Blog which have generated a lot of comments. Here’s a link to the first one; at the bottom of it is a link to the sequel. He has some harsh things to say about the whole Web 2.0 concept and, on a first reading, I kept nodding Yes, Yes, I agree. Here’s one paragraph that really struck me: The flight from expertise is accompanied by the opposite of expertise—the phenomenon that Andrew Keen has called, in his new book of the same name, “the cult of the amateur.” This cult, says Keen, “worships the creative amateur: the self-taught filmmaker, the dorm-room musician, the unpublished writer. It suggests that everyone—even the most poorly educated and inarticulate amongst us—can and should use digital media to express and realize themselves.” He is referring to the impulse behind Web 2.0, but his words have a wider resonance—a world in which everyone is an expert in a world devoid of expertise. […]

    1f85
  35. davidrothman.net » Blog Archive » Gormangate II and disagreeing with T. Scott Again Says:

    […] Damn it. I was going to stay out of the discussion of Gormangate II (see this, this, this, this, and this, for examples) until I saw Scott’s post on the topic. […]

  36. Trey Says:

    The main issue I see with the debate between the traditional, authoritative, hierarchical and controlled media sources such as the Britannica and the anarchic and grassroots efforts like the Wikipedia is this: there is definitely something to be said for the Britannica’s authenticity. If I read one thing in Wiki, and another thing in the Britannica, I am more likely to believe the Britannica. But *not always*. Let me give you a prime example. During my research on a discount brokerage in the US, the Britannica mentioned nothing about the scandal following a newly hired vice-president, when he was fired from his old company. Wikipedia went into great detail about the circumstances of the firing, the cultural background of what led to the man’s downfall, the background of his co-workers, the possibility that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and other data. In this case, the Wikipedia was more timely, more informed, and certainly more reliable for the information about the background of this new employee than the Britannica. The argument that because the masses are in control, chaos rules and nothing can be trusted is misleading at best. There is a germ of truth in it — do not believe everything you read. But that maxim also applies to the Britannica, and any other information source you use.

  37. Oh Lady Who? « Linkadelica Says:

    […] It’s taken me three days to finish this post thanks to post-party exhaustion and my efforts to adapt to my daughter’s new day camp schedule, but I’m pretty sure all the cake has been scraped off the basement floor and I’m very grateful that it’s over for another year. Now I can not only manage to post this but hopefully find a few words later to say about Michael Gorman’s latest technophobic grumbles, about which I am fairly riled but looking forward to debunking. […]

  38. Jill Says:

    Re Trey’s Comments:

    Yes, the Britannica would not have information on the fired vice-president from the brokerage company, and probably never will have–or even try to have–coverage of this kind. This falls outside the realm of what most general interest encyclopedias would attempt to cover without transforming themselves into newspapers or weekly magazines.

    This is part of the problem with calling Wikipedia an “encyclopedia.” I remember a year or so ago, during the gruesome beheadings of kidnapped civilians in Baghdad, that Wikipedia had biographies of those entirely unknown and tragic victims, all uploaded to Wikipedia within minutes of the news of their kidnapping or beheading. Some cite this response time as evidence of the beauty of “community-produced” work. Get real! Obviously the Wikipedia “writer” had simply cut and pasted this information from a traditional news service (the ones that Web 2.0 champions like to criticize) and slapped it up as a newly “written” “encyclopedia” entry.

    This info might be useful, but let’s not call this “writing,” hail it as “citizen journalism.” Wikipedia may be useful in this crass way, but I hope Britannica and World Book and the like never stoop to such methods, to ripping off headlines of the moment to see a boost in their coverage.

    Encyclopedias should be more thoughtful than this, offer more than this.

  39. The Emperor's New Clothes Says:

    Kudos to Michael Gorman who has the courage to say that the emperor “hasn’t got anything on.”

  40. Assault on “The Sleep of Reason” « Some Librarian Says:

    […] Assault on “The Sleep of Reason” Filed under: Uncategorized — scouthawk @ 9:53 pm Former ALA president Michael Gorman’s two-part post on the Britannica blog has incited a host of criticism from library and information professionals. Part one, titled “The Sleep of Reason,” argues the value of print resources over the “often-anarchic world of the Internet.” It’s hard not to miss the irony of Gorman using a blog to put forth his opinions, especially considering this.   […]

  41. Is "Web 2.0" Disaster? | BlogCascadia Says:

    […] But then along comes Michael Gorman with a piece he calls “Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason.” In it, he argues that the whole idea behind Web 2.0, that the collective intelligence is better than that of the individual, is .. well .. bunk. Why do we care about this Gorman guy? Well, he is a past president of the American Library Association, has a list of credentials as long as your arm, and … gosh, he makes some good points. Plus, he’s not alone. […]

  42. Michael Gorman, Fisher King « Karen Munro, E-Learning Librarian Says:

    […] June 14th, 2007 at 10:40 pm (Uncategorized) Oh boy. […]

  43. Derek White Says:

    We live in a world where information is no longer peer-reviewed or necessarily based on truth. Whether old dogs like Britannica like it or not, the most interesting and engaging memes will survive, regardless of validity. The double irony is that they are using a blog forum to bash blogs and “web 2.0″ (I mean, isn’t that term passé already?), and everyone, including me, that is responding to this are contributing to the value of this post by lashing back and linking to it. Bottom line: truth is boring.

    23b7
  44. down the drain « booktruck.org Says:

    […] Everyone and everyone who blogs about libraries has been talking about Michael Gorman’s blazes on the Britannica blog, and about some weird public blog dissing at NASIG. Okaaay. I think it’s because it’s the same old debate, floated for the millionth time. […]

  45. John Connell: the blog » Blog Archive » Demolition Says:

    […] A superb point-by-point demolition of Michael Gorman’s Sleep of Reason from Clay Shirky. […]

  46. digital digs Says:

    port authority

    Authority and expertise in a networked culture… it’s not a new problem. Wisdom of the crowd/ collective intelligence vs. individual genius? Sifting through all the dross, all the ideology, all the self-promotion, and all the poorly composed media. Y…

  47. John Connell: the blog » Blog Archive » El sueno de la razon produce monstruos Says:

    […] Perhaps Michael Gorman and his ilk should remember that the big bad monsters go away when you wake up! […]

  48. Digital Folklore « Tangier Sound Says:

    […] Encyclopædia Britannica would have you think this is all new. The ink and paper monolith has launched a forum to discuss Web 2.0 (as if anybody on earth could telly what Web 2.0 is outside of a sales pitch) and they are taking a pretty gloomy stance on how the Internet is changing the way we access information. Articles like The Sleep of Reason and Digital Maoism paint a picture of mindless hordes gobbling down bad information and making it fact by sheer force of will. […]

  49. library+instruction+technology » Everything is Miscellaneous… Says:

    […] Yeah, I know his point is that our old school ways of applying control over the ones and zeros zipping around on the series of tubes is in the best interest of no one. I agree that users should be able to tag their content and share their knowledge online. I am a user of Flickr, del.icio.us, Wikipedia, and many other digital disorder tools. I do my best to educate our students and faculty about these tools. However, I wish David would have thrown us a bone and commented somewhere in the book that librarians are finally getting on board. Most librarians will agree that our roles have evolved tremendously over the past few years. I know many are still focused on metadata, but that is a necessary evil when you are standing with one foot in the digital world and one foot in the print world. I would hazard to say that a fair number of academic librarians have embraced the new third order of order, okay may be not everyone .  […]

  50. John Unsworth Says:

  51. Trusting the experts « The Letter Z Says:

    […] Trusting the experts Published June 16th, 2007 Uncategorized Many bloggers in the past few days have been writing about Michael Gorman’s two recent pieces on the Encyclopedia Britannica blog (Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part I and Part II). In these two rather incoherent posts, Gorman, who is perhaps best known as the blog-hating former president of the American Library Association, associates Web 2.0 with “an increase in credulity and an associated flight from expertise,” which he blames for such calamities as citizen journalism, Biblical literalism, and Wikipedia. […]

  52. Bruce Sanders Says:

    Many of the replies to Michael Gorman’s blogposts are absolutely brilliant, but no one has mentioned the process that makes the wisdom of crowds possible. To understand why the wisdom of crowds works one must understand the process of natural selection. Without intelligence, natural selection can “design” the eye of an eagle, the wing of an albatross, and the perfect hydrodynamics of the dolphin. So too, without an expert, the amateur’s article can quickly be transformed via critique and revision into an article conveying expertise. Is this process perfect? No, it isn’t. But then neither is evolution. Hemorrhoids are an artifact of our transition to bipedalism. But given time, the results of natural selection processes can be amazing. So too, wikis can be erudite in the extreme. And alas, our experts aren’t gods and are subject to errors that are generally corrected much more slowly than by the natural selection process that takes advantage of the wisdom of crowds. Even worse, experts often become entrenched in a paradigm, incapable of admitting when they are wrong, and can be a detriment to the advance of knowledge. Max Planck summed this problem up nicely, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” It seems to me Max Planck had Michael Gorman’s number.

  53. Andrew Anderson Says:

    Bruce Sanders is unconvincing, and experience with Wikipedia proves the opposite. Many of the writers Sanders praises merely cut and paste from the expert entries written for vetted publications, be it Britannica or Grove or from assorted other sources, but with one major difference–the piecemeal, patchwork result of the prose is deadly and inconsistent and lacking coherence. More problematic still is the credible lie or undetected apparent truth that is rampant in Wikipedia (I have a list of 111 articles containing these credible lies) and which continue to root and spread because the “wisdom of the crowd” is incapable of detecting the subterfuge or error.

    And please don’t say that I have a responsibility to correct these known errors in Wikipedia. I have nothing of the sort–this frustration with Wikipedia and its “expert,” committed” adminsitrators is what convinced Pulitzer Prize-winning author Douglas Hofstadter to slam Wikipedia to the New York Times recently, figuratively throwing up and his arms and declaring, “Why bother to fix it? Some one will ‘fix’ it back.”

    Wikipedia is interesting for what it is, but champions like Mr. Sanders, exhibiting all the prudence and circumspection of an ideologue or giddy convert, embarrass themselves–please, quit overselling your product. Accept it for what it is, and accept the need for experts and an expert-based production paradigm. Your zero-sum game is unnecessary–both paradigms (open and traditional) can, and should, exist in the 21st century.

    1f51
  54. GotzeBlogged » Canonicalization of Democracy? Says:

    […] Also, there is an increasing amount of critique of Web 2.0, for example Michael Gorman’s (2007) Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason Brings Forth Monsters. Also: […]

  55. Bruce Sanders Says:

    It would have been nice if Andrew Anderson had tried to understand my letter rather than just jump to a bunch of erroneous conclusions concerning what I said. My letter was a reply to Michael Gorman’s blog posts, and discussed the mechanism, natural selection, which makes it possible for “amateurs” to create articles that convey expertise. Little of what Mr. Anderson says has anything to do with what I said.
    When he says that many of the writers I praise (I praised no writer or article in particular) merely cut and paste from expert entries, he does not even address much less undermine anything I wrote. Why? Because there are outstanding erudite articles in Wikipedia that don’t involve cutting and pasting from experts, and that exemplify the natural selection process I was discussing. If his argument is that all Wikipedia articles ultimately depend on experts as sources (and Wikipedia encourages its writers to cite their sources) then he needs to understand that articles by experts in authoritative encyclopedias also depend on other experts for their sources (and they usually cite them). If he is arguing against plagiarism, well I am against plagiarism too as is Wikipedia. Even so, plagiarism in and of itself says nothing about the veracity of a Wikipedia article and it certainly has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
    Mr. Anderson then jumps to talking about credible lies and undetected apparent truths (an odd turn of phrase–I assume he means undetected errors). I admitted explicitly that the natural selection process is not perfect. In fact, to continue the evolution metaphor, parasites are an inevitable outcome of natural selection processes. They can never be completely eradicated nor can they dominate since they depend on their host for survival. So too, errors, willful or not, cannot be fully eradicated from nor can they dominate Wikipedia for Wikipedia to survive. But there is a lesson to be learned here about authoritative works as well. About a year ago a former student of mine was telling me about the Nature article that concluded that Wikipedia was about as good as Britannica on science articles. He then said something to me I thought was very profound. He said that when he reads a Wikipedia article he reads it with a critical eye, and when he sees something suspicious he looks at the article’s history or even goes to another source. However, he said when he reads a Britannica article he simply assumes it is correct. Thus, I would argue the errors in Britannica have the potential to be far more damaging than Wikipedia’s errors because people are far more apt to accept them without question.
    Anderson then throws in a comment about Douglas Hofstadter being frustrated with Wikipedia. I can’t speak to his particular frustration, but it doesn’t undermine anything I wrote. The trend in Wikipedia is for articles to get better over time.
    Finally, Mr. Anderson writes, “Accept it for what it is, and accept the need for experts and an expert-based production paradigm. Your zero-sum game is unnecessary–both paradigms (open and traditional) can, and should, exist in the 21st century.” Either he did not read my letter carefully or he does not know the meaning of “zero-sum game.” I agree that both paradigms (open and traditional) can, and should, exist in the 21st century, and I said nothing to suggest otherwise. I was not playing a zero-sum game. Michael Gorman however, does not appear to be so open minded.

  56. Иван Бегтин | Критика социальных сетей. Web 2.0. Сон разума. Says:

    […] На эту тему пишет Майкл Горман, декан библиотечных наук Калифорнийского государственного университета. В двух заметках Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part Ieng и Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part IIeng он хорошо описывает атаку “онлайнового коллективизма” на институты индивидуального обучения и возможные из этого проблемы. […]

  57. Farkas / Gorman on authorahtay « Ghostfooting Says:

    […] When I read Michael Gorman’s two-part blog post (yes, I said blog post; if that isn’t the height of irony…) to respect the wisdom of the expert over the wisdom of the crowd, I thought of two people: Ayn Rand and Eric Cartman. The piece had all of Ayn Rand’s black-and-white, either-or thinking as well as her use of hyperbole. I’ll let the picture explain why I thought of Cartman. […]

  58. 240 Things » Hive mind and colony collapse disorder Says:

    […] I just read about ‘Remaining Relevant Online” in Library Journal and I’m also thinking about Michael Gorman’s posts on the Britannica blog. I’m thinking about research, information finding, and credulity. Gorman’s reference to the “hive mind” (he references Jaron Lanier’s Digital Maoism writing) made me think about the article I read yesterday about the recent marked decline of honeybees. Nobody seems to know yet just what has caused tens of thousands of bee colonies to die off in the past year. For now it has been called “colony collapse disorder” and research is focusing on a variety of possible causes including mites, pesticides, and even cell phone signals. […]

  59. τεχνοσοφια » Blog Archive » Yawn Says:

    […] Goodness, why give the author the satisfaction of a response? It lends his or her points a certain credence that they would otherwise lack. This, my friends, is little more than the sound of irrelevance. It will pass in time. […]

  60. Reading and snobbishness « I do not want people to be agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them. 1fec Says:

    […] This is mildly, but not completely, related to the current Michael Gorman/Britannica Blog librarian drama, which relates more to social information tools such as wikipedia, blogging, and citizen journalism.   Unfortunately, the idea that academia knows best is not a new one:  there are “Good” things to read and “Bad” things to read.  “Good” things have been praised to the heavens by academics. “Bad” things are the books you’d hide from your high school English teacher […]

  61. Web 2.0 good or bad? « Eric Jennings Says:

    […] Web 2.0 good or bad? Posted June 20, 2007 Recently, Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association wrote a couple of blog pieces for Britannica Online called, “Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason.” Here’s a quote which I think is especially appropriate for dissection: “This small example typifies the difference between the print world of scholarly and educational publishing and the often-anarchic world of the Internet. The difference is in the authenticity and fixity of the former (that its creator is reputable and it is what it says it is), the expertise that has given it credibility, and the scholarly apparatus that makes the recorded knowledge accessible on the one hand and the lack of authenticity, expertise, and complex finding aids in the latter. The difference is not, emphatically not, in the communication technology involved. Print does not necessarily bestow authenticity, and an increasing number of digital resources do not, by themselves, reflect an increase in expertise. The task before us is to extend into the digital world the virtues of authenticity, expertise, and scholarly apparatus that have evolved over the 500 years of print, virtues often absent in the manuscript age that preceded print.” […]

  62. sobre a web 2.0 e os velhos do restelo « a caixa Says:

    […] Num outro artigo, “Web 2.0: the sleep of reason, part I“, referenciado por Keen (o hipertexto é uma coisa fantástica, não é?), encontrei o seguinte: […]

  63. Daniel W. Drezner Says:

    Name this blog phenomenon!

    Apparently the Encyclopedia Brittanica now has a blog. Michael Gorman is using it to harumph at the myriad ways in which the Internet has destroyed all that is great and good in scholarship and high culture. His first post opens…

  64. EdVentures in Technology » Diigo Links 06/22/2007 - The Online Predation and Blog-Bashing Edition Says:

    […] Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part II - Britannica Blog  Annotated […]

  65. Lost in the Hive Mind | Power Webblog Says:

    […] Michael Gorman, in his first post in this forum, has given us an excellent description of a deepening divide in our culture, that between those who respect accomplishment and expertise and those who look for ways to avoid them.  I would like to develop one or two of his points here, in perhaps a somewhat less temperate way. Inspired by the spectacle of the French Revolution, William Wordsworth wrote in The Prelude:  Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive But to be young was very heaven! […]

  66. Another important related debate rises … « Death to internal marketing Says:

    […] Another important related debate rises … There has been an undercurrent of unease with web 2.0 and the social media/digital revolution.  Nowhere (that I can find) is teh debate more compelling and well-put than Michael Gorman at Brittanica’s The Sleep of Reason.  Andrew Keen tries to historicise Gormans posts parts I and II. […]

  67. re: web 2.0: the sleep of reason « Ghostfooting Says:

    […] woody evans opens his head « recent work re: web 2.0: the sleep of reason June 25th, 2007 I haven’t read every blog response to Michael Gorman’s recenttwo-parter about why Web 2.0 is bad for us (”It is this latter way of learning [learning through interaction with the human record, that vast assemblage of texts, images, and symbolic representations that have come to us from the past and is being added to in the present] that is under threat in the realm of digital resources.”)… but something immediately strikes me as wrong here… […]

  68. Forget Library 2.0 « stanislaus law library Says:

    […] Forget Library 2.0 I have been following with great interest. Michael Gorman’s rant concerning the cult of the amateur and the dumbing down of expertise. I find it interesting that an information professional would want to be in a high ivory tower of expertise and hoarding that expertise from the plebes. It seems counter intuitive.  To catch up see Michael Gorman rant this is part 1 of 2 […]

  69. Knowledge as a conversation | Everything is Miscellaneous Says:

    […] Tim Spalding of LibraryThing posts the intro to a talk he gave at the ALA in which he takes on Michael Gorman’s trashing of Knowledge 2.0. Tim challenges Gorman’s starting point. Herewith that starting point: “Human beings learn, essentially, in only two ways. They learn from experience—the oldest and earliest type of learning—and they learn from people who know more than they do.” […]

    1f45
  70. Carol Says:

    I’m going to repeat here what I’ve said on the other posts in this forum: just what a wonderful forum this has been, especially for anyone unfamiliar with the many serious issues at stake with our new technology.

    One doesn’t have to agree with everything Gorman, Keen, or Mann argued - or argued by Battles, boyd, or Shirky on the other side - to glean the fact that serious issues do exist, serious debates deserve attention, and that the digital world is far from settled. Thanks to Britannica for highlighting these important issues. And thanks to the Chicago Tribune for bringing this forum to the public’s attention.

  71. EdVentures in Technology » Michael Gorman’s Posts from the Ivory Tower Says:

    […] I haven’t had an opportunity to read Keen’s book yet and no doubt I will however what really has my head spinning are the treatises posted by former American Library Association (ALA) president Michael Gorman on the Brittanica Blog: Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, part I, Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, part II and most recently, The Siren Song of the Internet, part I and The Siren Song of the Internet, part II. Ironic that he’s posting at all, given the way Gorman decries blogs and blogging. […]

  72. MuseumLab » Blog Archive » Wisdom of Crowds Produces Monsters? Says:

    […] Here is something to think about. […]

  73. Participatory Radar: Sources and Links on my Radar this week : UberNoggin: Big Brains - Big Ideas Says:

    […] Britannica’s Latest Response to Wikipedia () It’s an incredible conversation with both sides launching against each other. Only if there were such involved debates over every participatory media form. […]

  74. GoldMundus » La otra cara de la Web 2.0 Says:

    […] La democratización digital que permite la Web 2.0 empieza a relativizar-se por personas y foros influyentes en el mundo de Internet. Hay quien llega a afirmar que esa Web 2.0 puede generar una desalfabetización masiva. Otros advierten de la manipulación a la que está expuesta esa democracia digitalizada. Y también hay quien considera que empiezan a destacar los intereses económicos más allá de la facilidad de intercambio que ofrecen las plataformas 2.0. […]

  75. MediaChannel.org Says:

    […] Consider Encyclopedia Britannica. The people there are seeing their core business, if not raison d’etre, come under challenge from the online world, most notably by Wikipedia. Never mind that those projects are extremely different; Britannica has gone on the attack, giving its new blog over to citizen-media critics, some of whom have independently discredited themselves to a large extent, and others whose arguments have been systematically pulled apart. (Michael Gorman’s “Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason Brings Forth Monsters” and Clay Shirky’s rebuttal, “Old Revolutions, Good; New Revolutions, Bad” are a prime example of the latter.) […]

  76. john Says:

    Just think: the called Web 2.0 it´s the preview of free start learning. It´s obvious that we can´t know if the information is right, but within the information we can look trough some other fonts and find the real truth. So what´s the problem of the Web 2.0? There´s no problem, it´s just the modern free abstract of ideas! Simply wonderfull, simply free!

  77. Zeitgeist - too hot for Wikipedia? at HotnStinky Says:

    […] See the movie’s page, and its sources to get a sense of where it’s coming from… I’m not much on 9/11 ‘conspiracies’ — not because I think such evil is beyond the present gang of murdering, torturing criminals, but because I simply do not believe the Cheney Administration could have pulled off such a dazzling, flawless operation. But Wikipedia’s apparent disregard for materials that are not rendered “notable” by recognition from “official” sources is troubling. At best, it betrays a tremendous insecurity about its status. By suggesting that online cinema is not significant, aren’t they reinforcing the position of the Michael Gormans of the world, that online resources are inherently inferior? […]

  78. Anne Frank Was an Unpublished Citizen Journalist: A Response to Michael Gorman « Linkadelica Says:

    […] This brings us to this persistently thorny issue of authority, which Michael Gorman seems to believe is primarily the province of books and librarians. I know this because I read it on the internet, and I had no trouble finding exactly the piece I needed instantly, using Google. As nice as it is of Mr. Gorman to worry that we may not be able to find the information we need online, I cannot help wondering by what standard he expects us to regard him as an expert on the on the internet. His expertise in many subjects is undeniable, among them libraries, librarianship, and cataloguing. I would not accept as an authority on the internet someone who has expressed his vehement antipathy for Google, Wikipedia, weblogs, and digitization while denying a bias, but I’m quite sure you are capable of forming your own opinion on that based on the evidence at hand. […]

  79. Readers Edition » Bürgermedien: Ein Zwischenbericht 1f8a Says:

    […] Neue Dinge stoßen immer auf Gegenreaktionen. Manchmal erreichen einen diese in Form schlecht informierter, reaktionärer Angst und sogar Hass. Manchmal nehmen sie auch die Form ernsthafter Kritik an. Aber immer ist es wichtig, Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken. Welche Sorgen zeigen sich in der ernsthafteren Kritik? Unter anderem der Gedanke, dass massenhafter Amateurjournalismus zu einem Qualitätsverlust führen könnte. Betrachten wir die Encyclopedia Britannica. Die Leute dort sehen ihr Kerngeschäft, wenn nicht sogar ihren Lebensinhalt, durch die Onlinewelt in Frage gestellt, allen voran durch Wikipedia. Natürlich sind die beiden Projekte sehr verschieden; dennoch hat Britannica den Kampf aufgenommen, indem sie ihren neuen Blog in die Hände von Bürgermedienkritikern gegeben haben. Einige davon haben sich in hohem Maße selbst diskreditiert, die Argumente von anderen wurden systematisch zerlegt. (Michael Gorman’s “Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason Brings Forth Monsters” und Clay Shirky’s Gegendarstellung, “Old Revolutions, Good; New Revolutions, Bad” sind erstklassige Beispiele.) Berechtigterweise hat die Kritik hat auch ethische Bedenken genannt. Sie führt an, dass die Standards traditioneller Medien – natürlich oft übertreten – dazu dienten, offenkundige Beeinflussung von Journalisten durch ihr Thema zu vermeiden. Wir kommen später dazu. […]

  80. Britannica Blog Provokes Reader Engagement : The Engagement Principles Says:

    […] In this case, Brittanica’s wide-ranging blog includes some posts clearly designed to provoke engagement — challenging their readers with intellectually charged posts on controversial topics. […]

  81. Chandler Writes. You Profit. / New Chandler Engagement Marketing Article Posted on Chief Marketer Says:

    […] My latest business blogging article for Chief Marketer takes a good look the Britannica Blog — a blog from a knowledge-based brand that’s existed since 1768. What’s newsworthy? Britannica wide-ranging blog posts articles designed to provoke engagement by challenging their readers on controversial topics. […]

  82. dreamattack » links for 2007-08-05 Says:

    […] Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part I - Britannica Blog “The life of the mind in the age of Web 2.0 suffers, in many ways, from an increase in credulity and an associated flight from expertise.” (tags: articles web2.0 libraries internet culture) […]

  83. Old Revolutions Good, New Revolutions Bad: A Response to Gorman | I Think Says:

    […] […]

  84. Center for Citizen Media: Blog » Blog Archive » Medios ciudadanos: un informe del progreso Medios ciudadanos: un informe del progreso Medios ciudadanos: un informe del progreso Medios ciudadanos: un informe del progreso Por Dan Gillmor Traduci Says:

    […] Considere la Encyclopedia Britannica. Las personas allí están viendo que su negocio principal, incluso su razón de ser, se enfrenta al desafío del mundo online, más notablemente de Wikipedia. No importa que estos proyectos sean extremadamente diferentes; Británica ha ido al ataque, regalando su nuevo blog a los críticos de los medios ciudadanos, algunos de los cuales en gran medida se han desacreditado a sí mismos de forma independiente, y otros cuyos argumentos han sido sistemáticamente destrozados (“Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason Brings Forth Monsters” de Michael Gorman y la impugnación de Clay Shirky “Old Revolutions, Good; New Revolutions, Bad” son un ejemplo de primera clase de lo último). […]

  85. Overman’s Blog » The one where I avoid all the clever Scott titles Says:

    […] According to Ridley Scott, the Internet and Mobile video are killing cinema. (Is anyone else sensing a pattern here?) If television didn’t do the deed, why would we think our even smaller Internet and iPhone screens are going to do so? […]

  86. Clarifying and Explaining » Blog Archive » Authority 2.0 Says:

    […] Michael Jensen has an interesting piece in the Chronicle of Higher Ed on the new metrics of authority in web 2.0 and beyond. (Thanks for the heads-up, David N.!) The question of how to maintain authority without its physical trappings — without a chain of validity stretching from a book’s publisher to its author to her college to its accreditation, for example — is a vexing one for old media academics. Encyclopedia Britannica’s Michael Gorman, for one. […]

  87. People make things grow not SEO Says:

    […] Things like SEO, linkbaiting and the like are only good if the content is what people want to read. If you are a successful blogger, then sure everyone is going to want to read your article on, ‘how to build a successful blog’. Why wouldn’t they? If I wrote an article on it… it would be dubious! That is really a question of authority in this new web 2.0 environment we find ourselves in. Who do we trust… those that appear to be authority figures? Surely not. […]

  88. Slouching towards Golgonooza » Blog Archive » Memi: heads in the cloud 1f5e Says:

    […] Michael Gorman raises a similar argument more cogently in an article on the Britannica Blog entitled Web 2.0: the sleep of reason. He states that Human beings learn, essentially, in only two ways. They learn from experience—the oldest and earliest type of learning—and they learn from people who know more than they do. The second kind of learning comes from either personal contact with living people—teachers, gurus, etc.—or through interaction with the human record, that vast assemblage of texts, images, and symbolic representations that have come to us from the past and is being added to in the present. It is this latter way of learning that is under threat in the realm of digital resources. […]

  89. happy birthday phonograph at walking paper Says:

    […] Sounds rather modern, eh? It might be useful to remember that resistance to participatory culture (Keen, Gorman) has a history. Technologies that have changed the way information is made/distributed/consumed have generally made a group of people mad and have changed the world. “These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country” […]

  90. A Stitch in Haste Says:

    Another Occupational Journalist Tantrum

    Question: What’s the only thing more pathetic than an occupational journalist (journalism is not a true profession, therefore there is no such thing as a “professional journalist”) who calls for

  91. Wiki learning Says:

    […]Writings cannot be trusted […]

    well..if this is for 30% true, then new update/algorithms must be found to fill this last 30%. This will be web3.0

  92. Geschilonline Says:

    […]states that Human beings learn, essentially, in only two ways. They learn from experience—the oldest and earliest type of learning—and they learn from people who know more than they do.[…]
    Thanks for this interesting discussion. It gives our team a lot of input for creating our new online learning environment, while exploring/using Wiki software. Feel free tot visit the site and leave a comment (now in Dutch only, but soon in English available).

  93. Autowerbung für Suchmaschinen-Optimierung |Surfe in ein andres Blau Says:

    […] Seit gestern ist mein “Silver Surfer” nicht mehr einfach nur silbern. Denn wenn ich schon ab und an mit einer CO2-Schleuder durch die Gegend gase, dann soll die Sache wenigstens einen Mehrwert besitzen (passend oder doch eher im Gegensatz zum Web 2.0 [> “The Sleep of Reason”]?). Nachdem eine Freundin ihr Auto verschönert hatte und mir den Menschen empfahl, der dies realisiert hat, sagte ich mir: Hey, ein Auto ist nichts anderes als eine fahrbare Litfass-Säule. Einmal bezahlt fürs Erstellen und Aufkleben, ab dann arbeitet mein Auto für mich. Egal, ob ich es bewege oder stehen lasse. Für Gewerbetreibende also im Grunde fast schon ein Pflichtprogramm wie die eigene Website. […]

  94. Annemarie Gastouder Says:

    Thanks for this interesting article Michael Gorman. With almost 100 comments it really is thought provoking for a lot of people. I have bookmarked this webpage to come back some other time. Thanks again!

  95. The flight from expertise at Arriving Somewhere Says:

    […] Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason: Part I, Part II […]

  96. Citegeist » Michael Gorman and the zzzzZZZ of zzzZZ *snnnggaahh* what was I saying? Says:

    […] Then, I went to Britannica’s blog and read the two-part essay. […]

Leave a Reply

a15 0