After reading Andrew Keen's "The Great Seduction" I was able to get a better grasp on what his stance on the internet is as well as what made him think this way. The fact that the idea of Web 2.0 was related to "democratization" was particularly intriguing as it seems to fit the idea perfectly. Keen discusses his distaste for Web 2.0 because everyone and anyone now has the ability to put information on the internet and deem it valuable. I believe he is a bit extreme in his assessment that all opinions that are put onto the internet are "superficial observations... rather than deep analysis". As with any form of published writing it is important to look at it with a critical eye and an open mind. The information posted can be of value as long as it is inspected and potentially backed up with further research.
Wikipedia without doubt has issues with credibility as Keen states that anyone can claim to be an expert on any given topic. However, it has the potential and ability to be corrected by another viewer who would actually have expertise. Again, wikipedia is agreeably not always the most reliable source, but it is necessary to weed out misinformation in any situation.
