The Cult of the Amateur: how today's internet is killing our culture, by Andrew Keen
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is not a fair book, and I'm proud of the fact that it's not fair. It's designed to open a fair conversation about Web 2.0". That is how Andrew Keen described his own book, 'The cult of the amateur: how today's internet is killing our culture ', during Google Talk 2007 in Mountain View, California [12]. This book both demonstrates the way the internet has evolved and highlights the problems and challenges that go along with the evolution of the internet. Keen's main message is basically this: the democratisation of media has created a new media landscape, in which the place for the serious 'old media', such as newspapers, is shrinking. Bloggers writing their own news, web-users suggesting sites on Digg.com and self-proclaimed experts adding articles to Wikipedia dominate the web nowadays. These expanding amateur-media create a culture of mediocrity, where a truly good artist or journalist does not stand out of the crowd. According to Keen, the increase in quantity of information thus causes a decrease in quality of information, thereby corrupting our culture and bringing down the expert institutions, such as professional journalism, novel writing and the music industry, which traditionally safeguard our societal values. Now, how does Keen structure his argument?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it