I am going to write a short summary that I have written after I have read the Screen Text. I’m writing by points to make it clearer and faster to understand.

.Feeling lost in the last few years, the author feels a lack of concentration and find it difficult to keep it once he gets it out.

.Every processes on Net is fast and this influences our life under every aspects, because we always want get everything faster.

.All sensations mentioned above are definitely usefuls but they have a price in terms of psychology of our mind: more you surf on Web, more you will need energie to find concentration everytime you will be on a long article.

.But why? Have we changed our way of think? Many proofs demonstrate that this phenomenon is quite common in our society. For example, how many time did you find a long page on a website that brought you to save it like a “favourite”? Have you ever come back on that page to complete the reading?

.Sometimes it seems people goes online to avoid the meaning of traditional reading.

.Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University, says our kind of reading on web is more superficial, more immediate; “we became mere decoders of information”. Our capacity to activate deep mental connections remains disengaged.

.An example is the way of writing of Nietzsche: since he bought a typewriter to avoid his sight problems, his style changed completely becoming more telegraphic.

.Our brain is so malleable and cases like this are concrete proof.

.Another example is the introduction of the clock in our society; it chaged completely our rythms – like the others instruments of measurement – the man left his natural instinct to live following pre-fixed schemesto eat, sleep, study, etc.

.The parallelism between the Taylor’s philosophy of work and Google work’s system. It is working like a perfect engine: organising all world information and making it universally accessible and useful. Furthermore It is trying to understand clearly what the user is looking for and give him back exactly what he wants.

Here there is a quite big part about a Ted’s talk about the “crowd accelerated innovation”. They explain that a good way to create it is to have three important elements:

1) a crowd – a group of people who share a common interest
2) a light – something can be used to illuminate the crowd, something shining and curious
3) the desire – you need to desire something to get it

I am mentioning just this part because I found it really interesting and useful to our target, to get more information you should check the link available beside the text.

.Post Cinema piece

.Douglas Gordon Experiment

.Andrew Keen: Think is so over

Andrew Keen believes Web 2.0 is killing our culture, and mainly because many people everyday put information online without care about the quality of them. Wikipedia is a clear example of what is happening. William Connolley, an expert on climate warming, tried to correct some wrong articles but the permission was denied and he was accused of trying to remove “any point of view which does not match his own”.
All of this, for Andrew Keen is completely absurd ( and I agree ).

.The best minds usually go beyond the wisdom of the crowd but Wikipedia is destroying this kind of thought. I am gonna give you an example:

Wikipedia got the 17th place in the “most trafficked website” on the Net.
Britannica.com got the 5128 place.

the only difference is that Wikipedia hasn’t got experts and it’s full of mistakes; Britannica.com counts 100 nobel prize-winning and 4000 experts.

something is going wrong?

.Is going to be a dictatorship of idiots!
.Many bloggers are amateur fans, they are not proper experts, this is bringing quality down.
.This kind of information is a good point for people but somehow it should be more controlled.

.The music field is another chapter really damaged by this 2.0 diffusion. Everyone can dowload everything without breaks, and also can upload lots of music pieces even if they are poor of creativity.

COMMENTS

Actually I think the text give us some different points of view about the use of Web whether is 2.0 or not. How can we really agree with or against them.. I mean, their analysis have solid basis.. for example:

it’s true.. the too much use of internet bring us to lose our concentration on long articles
but it’s also true that now through internet we know more things

it’s true.. the lack of concentration brings the average quality down
but it’s also true that now many more people have a basic instruction thanks to internet

it’s true.. we are going to lose the power of Gatekeepers because everyone could appear on web like an expert without being him, putting false information ( like some cases on Wikipedia ) but it’s also true that now I can debate on every arguments with my friends from Germany, England, Belgium just sitting down on a chair in my room..

I completely agree the first part of the text when the author explain how we are losing our capacity of concentration because actually it happened to me thousand times when I was reading this article! The structure itself of the Net is made to bring people to do billions of clicks everyday, because the clicks are the new value in this multimedial world. Big advertising contracts are stipulated among the biggest agencies in the world and everything is based on “click”. Google gives us back best results counting the number of clicks that link received and carry on… It is normal we are taking this superficial behaviour, it’s exactly what they want from us.

I believe this article makes us think about the “double sides of the medal” suggesting us points of reflection without giving us a clear direction. Actually is so difficult for me say “I disagree with Andrew Keen” on some points ( clearly some declarations are too extremists ).

Advertisements