I have to give credit to Keen. In a room filled with web 2.0 evangelists — he stood his ground. I was waiting for people to throw rotten fruit at him.

But the whole debate seemed like a Red Herring to me. For one, Keen was out to sell books via provoking. More important Keen is an extremist (at least, that’s how he came off to me). I think there are valid concerns and issues that he brings up. But “how the amateur is killing our culture and our economy.” — seems a bit dramatic.

Granted: I’m bias in the other direction — having been involved in a project that banked completely on user generated content and currently helping to research a book on “crowdsourcing.” But at least I recognize my extremities.

Scott Rosenberg has a good roundup of the players, including Andrew Keen, Nicholas Carr, Michael Gorman of the ALA, and the Britannica folks. Rosenberg also repeats a common argument:Regardless of how you feel about all these issues, it’s hard to…

Yes, a swarm phalanx. Or, as I like to say, a swarmlanx.

Is swarmlanx.com available?

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2101810,00.html

Let’s say that Britannica has indeed stacked the deck. What does that accomplish?

Well, absolutely nothing. Which is why we’ve invited people who don’t agree with Gorman, like Shirky and for that matter Nick Carr.

And please read Matthew Battles’ piece if you think we’re being phalanx-centric. I can’t believe the guy’s not famous. Or is he and I just don’t know it?