Web 2.0 is a slippery term. For our purposes, I will use it to refer to the recent trends in the “social” Internet arising circa 2004. Sites such as Wikipedia, Del.icio.us, MySpace, Facebook, and Digg are all part of the Web 2.0 trend. While much of what makes up Web 2.0 has been around prior to 2004, the Internet has exploded into a plethora of “social” features such as voting, linking up with friends, recommendations based on user ratings and collaboration. Even “old media” sites such as the New York Times and CNN now include links with their stories that integrate features from popular Web 2.0 sites. It is now easier to incorporate their content into your own “reality.”

Many of us have taken these developments in stride without thinking about the potential consequences. We have come to accept personalization and the democratization of information as progress. A new book has raised a number of questions regarding this movement. Scott Lamb at Discerning Reader recently reviewed Andrew Keen’s The Cult of the Amateurs. In it Keen claims the Web 2.0 phenomenon is seductively destroying our culture.

What the Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world around us rather than considered judgment. The information business is being transformed by the Internet into the sheer noise of 100 million bloggers all simultaneously talking about themselves[...] In the cult of the amateur, those who know the most can be persecuted by those who know the least[...] The most popular blogs are those that offer the seductive conspiracy theories and sensationalist antiestablishment platitudes that readers crave.

Although the questions he raises are good, Keen comes across as overly biased - something he has openly admitted¹. His book is designed to open a discussion of the issues. Given the nature of his intended audience, I can understand why he has chosen to present his argument in this fashion. As I’m sure he anticipated, much of the Web 2.0 world has labeled him as the digital antichrist and discredited the book without thinking about its critique².

As much as I’m a technophile and even a “Web 2.0″ programmer³, I must agree with most of what I’ve read in his book⁴. I suggest at least reading Lamb’s review. As Christians, we must think about these topics critically. We do not need to throw all of Web 2.0 out, however, we must discern with redeemed minds what should be used for the advancement of the Kingdom and what should be discarded.

1. I can’t cite the direct source - having [ironically] heard the audio clip on a podcast.↩
2. Needless to say, perhaps the most vocal opponents will not even read the book.↩
3. I created and maintain castlechurch.org↩
4. As a matter of full disclosure, I have not completed the book.↩