The SFGate has an essay by Special Guest blogger, Andrew Keen that gets my goat.
What Keen is critiquing has nothing to do with Web 2.0, but with the content created by the people that are using the web.
Web 2.0 is a group of technologies that allow people to work with hosted services in an interactive way they have grown accustomed to interacting with software installed on their computers.
This essay really doesn't talk about that at all. It talks about what people create using these, and other technologies.
As someone else said when commenting on the essay, a lot of the content that individuals put on the web is similar to Usenet content, only with pictures. Give people a forum to speak, and the majority of what they will say is crap. That's been true since long before the web existed. The web makes it easier to make the crap heard, and to find the crap, but it doesn't bring the crap into being.
I think what Keen is really critiquing can be found by examining his trust that "traditional" outlets can bring you the best entertainment and information. It's an indictment of non-"traditional" sources of information and entertainment. He's saying he'd never read the Guardian, trusting the Chronicle to give him everything he needs to stay informed; it's saying he'd never listen to independent music labels, trusting Sony to bring him all the good music possible; it's saying he'll never watch an independent movie, trusting the big Hollywood studios to bring him the best in cinematic content.
Fine. People have felt that way for as long as humans have been able to speak, write, and create images. It's foolish, though, to expect everyone to agree with him.
All artists know that everything they create is a collaboration between them and the person reading, viewing, or listening to what they have created. Thus a painting that I think is brilliant can appear without merit to you. The painting hasn't changed, but the viewer has. When Keen says that "writers should write and readers should read", he's writing nonsense. The reader evaluates what he is reading. As part of that, he brings to the work his own experiences and frame of reference. That collaboration between the writer and the reader is what leads to the value judgment.
His entire premise is based on the idea that what he likes, everyone will like; that there's an inherent value in every artistic creation - that's nonsense.
This belief doesn't have anything to do with Web 2.0, though. In truth, it's the same discussion that's been going on in modern art for nearly a century (or longer). Take a look at the discussion started by Marcel Duchamp's Fountain. If you don't see the parallels between that and the content created on the web today, you're not thinking clearly.
It's easy now for everyone to create content that people all over the world will see, hear, or read. What makes it good? Keen says it's good if it's a source he trusts. I say it's good if you like it.