A friend recenly sent me a link to Nicholas Carr's article The Amorality of Web 2.0. Carr makes an interesting counterpoint to the hype of Web 2.0 by deconstructing the religious hype language used around the web. His primary concern, however, is one of the economics of the amateur vs. the expert in the world of the web.

The Internet is changing the economics of creative work - or, to put it more broadly, the economics of culture - and it's doing it in a way that may well restrict rather than expand our choices. Wikipedia might be a pale shadow of the Britannica, but because it's created by amateurs rather than professionals, it's free. And free trumps quality all the time. So what happens to those poor saps who write encyclopedias for a living? They wither and die. The same thing happens when blogs and other free on-line content go up against old-fashioned newspapers and magazines. Of course the mainstream media sees the blogosphere as a competitor. It is a competitor. And, given the economics of the competition, it may well turn out to be a superior competitor. The layoffs we've recently seen at major newspapers may just be the beginning, and those layoffs should be cause not for self-satisfied snickering but for despair. Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening.

While I think Carr is rightly concerned about the quality of information on the web, I wonder if he is confusing market shifts with the death of good information. True newspapers are going under, but this was happening before the web was nearly the factor that is today. Sure the Wikipedia is free and not the greatest writing, but who really needs 10 linear feet of bound Britanica in their house, especially when it will be out of date before you get your last shipment. Emerging technologies have always challenged existing business. The Model-T was bad for buggy manufacturers, electricity was bad for the lamplighters guild, and I know that as a photographer, the advent of digital photography has ravaged the pro photography business. Such is the way of the world.

Ultimately, bad information is more expensive than good information. In an economy that is driven by market competition, I think the odds are in favor of the continued existence of quality information produced by experts. Where I think Carr's concerns are valid, however, are not in whether or not good information will exist, but will it be affordable for the average Jane or Joe? I guess we'll have to wait and see.