The Truth According To Wikipedia

the truth doesn't exist at all, if we have an agreement, that will be our truth, we build the truth

Web 2.0 is a joke. Its a term used so some ass can claim his doctorate.
I've been in the web industry since its inception, there is no MAJOR revision of the web paradigm since its start. These new wave yuppies can keep your Volkswagon, overpriced coffee, macbook, and web 2.0.
Idiots.
Dont waste your time with this video.

is this supposed to be funny?

people who don't realise that books are just as trustible as wikipedia... just makes me LOL

Is anyone planning on informing Mr. Keen of how purely ironic it is that his interview is being screened on the internet, specifically on youtube? Or, for that matter, how hypocritical?

You should stick to books in the library. Reading library books is cheap and will give you much more knowledge per subject. An added bonus is that you will get only the knowledge you're looking for without commercial stuff

Anybody can publish a book, without being checked for relevancy, research or accuracy. Individually authored books are also written from a singular perspective, sometimes omitting other facts and information. Sometimes, facts are simply out of date. I mean, look at a periodic table of the elements from 40+ years ago. Ununoquim isn't likely to be on there.

As a counterpoint, though, there are such fallacies as Conservapedia (Which should never, ever be taken seriously).

Obviously you shouldn't just read anything or trust anything you read, critical thinking can help you in that department. It should also be obvious that anything you read is subject to the viewpoints of its author (book or internet). Even if you have something that is objectively true theres always presenting information in a light favoring you views or omitting information.

My point is that in any situation on the internet all the problems that apply for books can be equally true while losing some of advantages of books like structure and global overview.

I'm not saying that wikipedia cannot provide an in-depth view on anything, I'm just saying that choosing a good book can provide you with more extensive information than a wikipedia article while not having to check every author and reference. Just checking one author and reading critically is enough for a book.