I like Wikipedia; "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," claims as listed on the homepage. If I have no idea what someone is talking about, such as a new "buzzword," I go immediately to wikipedia.org. Why? If it is happening now, especially if it's popular, there will be a wikipedia entry.Do I view it as the absolute source for information? Of course not. My seven-year-old neighbor could have written the entry. Or a tenured professor from Rutgers or Yale. I have no idea, but I do know that many people have checked it out, edited it, re-edited it, etc. and I will get a rough idea about what I need to know.
According to Jaron Lanier, Edge writer and "digital visionary," this web entity is dangerous, just like Facism or "Maoism" (as the article title suggests, "Digital Maosim") because of the concept of what he calls the "hive mind." Think of bees, right? All these people out there in digital land are anonymous and contributing to this reference tool called Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia of sorts. Safety in numbers, anonymity, no accountability, etc. makes for dangerous territory. This brings to mind a proverb from the Holy Bible; we like sheep are led astray...ring a bell?
The encroachment of Wikipedia into our daily lives is also of concern for Lanier. He suggests that this idea of wiki-dom has been "thrust upon us"...but by whom? Certainly not creator Jimmy Wales. I am not forced to use Wikipedia because the software has already been installed into my computer before it is delievered to my house, and because it is the only program others are using, like some other programs.
According to Marshall Poe in his article about Wikipedia called The Hive, Jimmy Wales is a lassiez-faire kind of guy. Merriam-Webster describes this term as 2 : a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action, much like the policy on economics in the early days of American capitalism. Poe suggests that Wikipedia grew into the monster that it is today because Wales let it be. Instead of trying to control or moderate the entity, like Wales' early partner Larry Sanger. Sanger's ideas that Wikipedia should be more like an online academic journal moved much too slowly for the liking of everyone involved. Which is why he "resigned" and is apparently working on a sharing site, much like what he tried for with Wikipedia to begin with. I wish you luck, Larry! I truly cannot wait for something so genius to be available for graduate student-types, like myself, for quick referencing and accuracy to boot.
Wikipedia has grown by leaps and bounds since its creation in 2001, more than anyone could have dreamed or imagined. So does bigger = better? According to Lanier, "the hive mind is ... stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?" Well if it's so stupid and boring, why is it the 17th most visited website in the world (according to Schiff), outranking the websites of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal two to one? Stacy Schiff from the New Yorker writes in her article "Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? that Wikipedia is devoted to a higher good, allows for self-expression, and beats all sources "when it comes to breadth, efficiency, and accessibility", including an amusing antecdote about our parents reaching for pencils whilst our generation pecks away and finds more than we wanted to know in the same amount of time it takes for the pencil to be found.
Convenient it may be, but is it trustworthy? I mean, if anyone can edit an entry, doesn't that mean you can't trust it? The argument that you can trust these peer-sharing entries is based on the "power of community" - it drives and creates the strength of Wikipedia, says Poe. Vandalism (false entries, slanderous accusations and the like) are usually taken care of by other community members and rarely do the powers that be (Wales and a few chosen other Wikipedians) delete or permanently edit an entry on the site. Poe also admonishes that "any wired-up fool can" change entries in some way and Schiff admits that Wikipedians don't like to be accused of errors- hopefully, in an optimistic tone, she remorses, "one day, it may grow up."
Although Lanier's opinion is extremist, he does have a great point: "without an independant press, composed of heroic voices, the collective becomes stupid and unreliable." He talkes about a checks and balances system, citing examples of tenure in academia- people get tenure, not the institution. In life, we reward people for doing good work by giving raises, treats, perks and bonuses, etc. Think of any system in which an individual uses his or her mind, body, skills for some productive purpose- if that person is rewarded, he or she will continue to produce good, quality work, and the opposite can certainly become a reality all too quickly. Why cannot the same principals be applied with the collective project of Wikipedia?
And context...also a very valid and important point. When reading Encyclopedia Brittanica, with which Wikipedia has been most often compared, there is a certain "voice", even if it is "Dead White Men," as Lanier suggests. With so many different people editing Wikipedia, there is no voice and no real context behind the entries. He compared these entries with some from Myspace - a website where a person can create a small place of her own on the internet, upload photos, download music, blog and share information with chosen "friends." At least on a Myspace entry, you know who authored it and what the opinion is; you get a "feeling" of the voice. If we are not cherishing individualism on the web, it is doomed to be lost.
So we don't end up in an articificial intelligence run society, Lanier admonished that we must "cherish individuals first." Not a bad idea.
Comments