Acronym

I would also recommend Maggie read the article. My first reaction to the beginning was also negative, but I thought Keen did a good job at "meeting us where we live" - which is a point of skepticism - and turning it into a "get on the train before it leaves the station" argument. I didn't think he went far enough in providing advice in how to do that, but I think he made a good case for why Associations should not only get on the train but move to the front of the bus (to mix a metaphor).

Thanks for using my blog entry as counterpoint above.

I skimmed the article on the plane last night and it is better than when I heard him interviewed on the radio. For his insights to be valuable (and heard) I think he needs to refrain from the easy cheap shots I've sometimes heard his use for laughs or to get people's head nodding.

I'm going to give the article a deeper read, but my problem is he seems to association the technology with the person behind it. The Internet enables many voices, many of which indeed are "amateurs" in Keen's term, but that status shouldn't be used as a broadbrush indictment about the value of those potential contributions.

If in professional development we believe the wisdom of crowd (session attendees) has a useful role and can peacefully coexist with the sages on the stage why can't the same be true in an online arena? But in support of some of Keen's assertions, I think associations will increasingly have the vital role of "trusted editor" as Kevin Kelley wrote in one of his books more than a decade ago.

All right, all right, I'll read it!! Just give me a couple days. But I will tell you those quotes you pulled out are already irritating me. : )

OK - check out my response! http://diaryofareluctantblogger.blogspot.com/2007/11/on-keen-reply-to-acronym.html

When I was little my grandfather used to have very positioned conversations with me. He'd latch on to a topic that I, as a very young girl, still felt passionate about.

We would go around and around. Just about the time I thought had him, he would flip sides and give some ridiculous point that I had to disagree with. And so I would start to debate as fiercely the point I just disagreed with.

These conversations drove me nuts - and I loved them! (And oh what I would give to be able to have one with him now as an adult...)

Grandpa owned a lumberyard and was an architect too. He believed good solutions came from understanding many perspectives.

He believed he was training me for success in life - and he did. My ability to step into many shoes has helped me to create better solutions to challenges.

When you can learn the why behind the negative/contrary point of view, you can learn a lot about your own perspective.

Cynthia

Thank you for sharing that story, Cynthia. The original post was kind of a dual post and others commented on the social media part, but I think the much more important part was seeking alternative viewpoints.

One of my favorite interview questions I ask people seeking a job is: "When was the last time you changed your mind at work?"

For those of you interested in this discussion, Jeff Cobb has also posted a review of the Keen piece at the Mission to Learn blog.

Ok, my 2 cents.

http://blogclump.blogspot.com/2007/11/reaction-to-keen-article.html

Thanks Lisa--I meant to drop back by here and comment after my post, but life outside the blogosphere took precedence! I empathize with Maddie's original view point if only because seeing violent verbs juxtaposed to slippery terms like culture always makes me a bit nervous. But Scott is right--you have to face the contrary viewpoints and engage in the conversation. (And I think conversations are the point of blogs, in most instances. I'm not sure that Keen's underlying assumption that people look to blogs for expertise is necessarily valid.) Kudos to Maddie for taking it all in stride. Jeff

I’ve read the article and everyone’s comments (and blogs) on it. I’m interested to hear your opinions on the topic of closed vs open networks. I like the idea of opening up some of the 2.0 tools to search engines.
We can only market so much and to so many people. If prospective customers are looking for what we have be it knowledge, community, or anything else – and they don’t know we have it because it never comes up on a search - what’s the point of having all the information out there? We talk to ourselves enough.
And isn’t outreach and education a part of many of our mandates as associations?
Roberta

The first of Andrew's comments that struck a chord with me was "cacophonous chaos of the blogosphere". I agree completely (and I am in the blogosphere business!). There are tremendous things happening in blogs all over the world. At the same time, for every 10 blogs that you read that have a meaningful impact on how you view the world, their are 10,000 more that are simply rehashing Britney's comeback performance on the MTV Music Awards. John Naisbitt (Megatrends) most famous quote is "We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge". More information does not always mean more knowledge. In many cases it means more noise.

The other comment that made me think was - "once anyone can join an association, then it no longer is one".

We have over 9,000 groups (in close to 100 countries) using our Group Engagement Network. Most (nearly 7,000) are private, invitation-only groups. We have found that the level of trust, participation and true knowledge transfer is much higher within these private groups than those that have adopted a public, anyone can join position.

I am not anti-Web 2.0 at all. I do know that, of the 500+ TV channels I receive at home, I usually watch the same 6 channels. Would my life be better without the other 400+?

Maybe.