ate on a single example (from the book): The Brittanica – that represents the professional culture against Wikipedia which is the amateur adversary. The Britannica is without doubt more accurate than the wikipedia. The Britanica is the real “authority” (a recent ezine blog post is just referring on this topic of author versus authority). The difference is obvious. Britannica is professional, expensive and exclusive, the Wikipedia is “cheap”, amateur, non-exclusive and thus open for everybody.

If you would co

Internet (web 2.0) is changing the world. Communities and most of all the Blogs are one source of change. This is affecting journalism. Blogs have entered the journalist stage and their contributors could be described as the amateurs in contrast to the professional and the incumbent market that is sourced by (real) journalists.

The stock of Read Elsevier declined sharply after the introduction of Internet and the “new economy.” Elsevier is an information brokerage company that is brokering between professional sources of information (medical, fiscal and juridical) and the demand site on the other hand. Only recently the stocks of this and other similar companies have recovered from their massive falls five years ago. Then, people thought that the internet revolution would change and make all information freely available.

What happened instead is that more information came available. The professional market remained more or less the same and a complete new market of amateur information provider entered the game. Newspapers had to offer content for free up to a certain limit, but now most free articles require (a sometimes free) subscription. Paid (and in-depth) content is returning as a best practice.

On most places in Europe (and I believe in North America) it is now possible to grab a free newspaper -- metro, 20minutes, etc -- The content is less professional and more superficial that the traditional news(papers) but you get informed. If you want more information about Iraq, aids or the European Union, you will find a dedicated forum or Blog for it. Article writing is also on the amateur side of the information highway. Even those who have written on or more books (not e-books) are technically speaking still amateurs if they are not professionally dedicated to writing.

Is this change a problem you might argue. “Yes,” argues Andrew Keen, author of the book: The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture (http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Amateur-Internet-killing-culture/dp/0385520808)

Let’s elaborate on a single example (from the book): The Brittanica – that represents the professional culture against Wikipedia which is the amateur adversary. The Britannica is without doubt more accurate than the wikipedia. The Britanica is the real “authority” (a recent ezine blog post is just referring on this topic of author versus authority). The difference is obvious. Britannica is professional, expensive and exclusive, the Wikipedia is “cheap”, amateur, non-exclusive and thus open for everybody.

If you would co

l sources of information (medical, fiscal and juridical) and the demand site on the other hand. Only recently the stocks of this and other similar companies have recovered from their massive falls five years ago. Then, people thought that the internet revolution would change and make all information freely available.

What happened instead is that more information came available. The professional market remained more or less the same and a complete new market of amateur information provider entered the game. Newspapers had to offer content for free up to a certain limit, but now most free articles require (a sometimes free) subscription. Paid (and in-depth) content is returning as a best practice.

On most places in Europe (and I believe in North America) it is now possible to grab a free newspaper -- metro, 20minutes, etc -- The content is less professional and more superficial that the traditional news(papers) but you get informed. If you want more information about Iraq, aids or the European Union, you will find a dedicated forum or Blog for it. Article writing is also on the amateur side of the information highway. Even those who have written on or more books (not e-books) are technically speaking still amateurs if they are not professionally dedicated to writing.

Is this change a problem you might argue. “Yes,” argues Andrew Keen, author of the book: The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture (http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Amateur-Internet-killing-culture/dp/0385520808)

Let’s elaborate on a single example (from the book): The Brittanica – that represents the professional culture against Wikipedia which is the amateur adversary. The Britannica is without doubt more accurate than the wikipedia. The Britanica is the real “authority” (a recent ezine blog post is just referring on this topic of author versus authority). The difference is obvious. Britannica is professional, expensive and exclusive, the Wikipedia is “cheap”, amateur, non-exclusive and thus open for everybody.

If you would co

ewspapers had to offer content for free up to a certain limit, but now most free articles require (a sometimes free) subscription. Paid (and in-depth) content is returning as a best practice.

On most places in Europe (and I believe in North America) it is now possible to grab a free newspaper -- metro, 20minutes, etc -- The content is less professional and more superficial that the traditional news(papers) but you get informed. If you want more information about Iraq, aids or the European Union, you will find a dedicated forum or Blog for it. Article writing is also on the amateur side of the information highway. Even those who have written on or more books (not e-books) are technically speaking still amateurs if they are not professionally dedicated to writing.

Is this change a problem you might argue. “Yes,” argues Andrew Keen, author of the book: The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture (http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Amateur-Internet-killing-culture/dp/0385520808)

Let’s elaborate on a single example (from the book): The Brittanica – that represents the professional culture against Wikipedia which is the amateur adversary. The Britannica is without doubt more accurate than the wikipedia. The Britanica is the real “authority” (a recent ezine blog post is just referring on this topic of author versus authority). The difference is obvious. Britannica is professional, expensive and exclusive, the Wikipedia is “cheap”, amateur, non-exclusive and thus open for everybody.

If you would co

a dedicated forum or Blog for it. Article writing is also on the amateur side of the information highway. Even those who have written on or more books (not e-books) are technically speaking still amateurs if they are not professionally dedicated to writing.

Is this change a problem you might argue. “Yes,” argues Andrew Keen, author of the book: The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture (http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Amateur-Internet-killing-culture/dp/0385520808)

Let’s elaborate on a single example (from the book): The Brittanica – that represents the professional culture against Wikipedia which is the amateur adversary. The Britannica is without doubt more accurate than the wikipedia. The Britanica is the real “authority” (a recent ezine blog post is just referring on this topic of author versus authority). The difference is obvious. Britannica is professional, expensive and exclusive, the Wikipedia is “cheap”, amateur, non-exclusive and thus open for everybody.

If you would co

ate on a single example (from the book): The Brittanica – that represents the professional culture against Wikipedia which is the amateur adversary. The Britannica is without doubt more accurate than the wikipedia. The Britanica is the real “authority” (a recent ezine blog post is just referring on this topic of author versus authority). The difference is obvious. Britannica is professional, expensive and exclusive, the Wikipedia is “cheap”, amateur, non-exclusive and thus open for everybody.

If you would compare them on (architectural) Style, the Britannica would be more like the Guggenheim and Wikipedia the Wembley stadium. The Guggenheim is able to cater only a select number of visitors, whereas Wembley may serve thousands of supporters in a few hours...

To be continued...