Thing 5: In Which I Show My Inner Curmudgeon

From Wikipedia's article on Web 2.0:

Critics such as Andrew Keen argue that Web 2.0 has created a cult of digital narcissism and amateurism, which undermines the notion of expertise by allowing anybody, anywhere to share (and place undue value upon) their own opinions about any subject and post any
kind of content regardless of their particular talents, knowledgeability, credentials, biases or possible hidden agendas. He states that the core assumption of Web 2.0, that all opinions and user-generated content are equally valuable and relevant is misguided, and is instead "creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity: uninformed political commentary, unseemly home videos, embarrassingly amateurish music, unreadable poems, essays and novels," also
stating that Wikipedia is full of "mistakes, half truths and misunderstandings".

To use some internet slang, QFT. That's "Quoted For Truth," to the uninitiated.

I've been trying to get my head around Web 2.0 - not as a concept, mind you, but what exactly the point is supposed to be. Most of the Web 2.0 tools I've encountered are neat tricks with some underlying technology that will probably SOMEDAY be really handy, but right now they're digital parlor tricks with silly names.

Add to Keen's criticism the fact that these tools are not going to be for everyone until everyone can afford internet access and a powerful enough machine to utilize it fully, and you get - in my opinion - the global information technology equivalent of the Segway. It's touted as revolutionizing the way we do things, but though the underlying technology is impressive, the masses don't see that part. We see the end-user part, and often have to ask: "That's neat - but what's it good for?"

Or, "I don't have internet access at home."

Or, "My computer can't run the required plugins."

And so on.

I know early adopters drive technology, but I don't think we should let technology drive the bus. Yes, students can enrich their education with the internet, but we should not allow the internet to further wedge open the gap between haves and have-nots.

Additionally, I don't see the virtue of technology for its own sake. The "classroom drawing" requirement for this class, for instance, has got me scratching my head. I have to include computers in my "ideal classroom," which means I have to make up some reason to have in-class computer time. At least for my part, I can't think of much of anything my students would do with a computer in class where the time wouldn't be better spent presenting material or answering questions. I do think it'd be useful for all teachers to have a setup similar to what we see in APSU classrooms, with one computer and an A/V setup that includes a smart board and a projector, but that's got nothing to do with "Web 2.0," and frankly it seems to me that many school systems can't afford to go even THAT far.