Openpedia.org > shirky (and others) respond to lanier's "digital maoism"
[if:book] Clay Shirky has written an excellent rebuttal of Jaron Lanier's wrong-headed critique of collaborative peer production on the Internet: "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism." Shirky's response is one of about a dozen just posted on Edge.org, which also published Lanier's essay.
Borderland: Lanier’s essay, and the collective responses of Shirky, Douglas Rushkoff, Quentin Hardy, Yochai Benkler, Clay Shirky, Cory Doctorow, Kevin Kelly, Esther Dyson, Larry Sanger, Fernanda Viegas & Martin Wattenberg, Jimmy Wales, George Dyson, Dan Gillmor, and Howard Rheingold, make for an entertaining and informative commentary on Wikipedia, and the cultural changes that networked media are having on our society in general. (via Cosmos)
open...: The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. (via Cosmos)
FutureWire - futurism and emerging technology: Some may dismiss Lanier as an elitist, but he makes some very sound points that explain in part why collective tools such as wikis are still, for the most part, on the periphery. Collective intelligence remains immature, and it's still up to the early adopters to strike a balance between leveraging group intelligence and helping others interpret and direct that intelligence. (via Cosmos)
B2fxxx: Like Lanier, I see individuals as the bearers of moral claims and the sources of innovation, creativity, and insight. Unlike Lanier, I have argued that enhanced individual practical capabilities represent the critical long term shift introduced by the networked information economy, improving on the operation of markets and governments in the preceding century and a half. (via Cosmos)
BORDBUCH.NET: Jaron Lanier, aka the person who coined the term Virtual Reality makes a good point in Edge about Web 2.0 and its collective beat - it can be hijacked for questionable causes. I think his article is a healthy reminder towards the loss of value that goes into the craft of an individual web creation, be it text, foto or video, especially when it wanders from wikis to blogs to aggregators. (via Cosmos)
Constructing the Digital Universe: There are replies from Clay Shirky, Cory Doctorow, Jimmy Wales, me, and a bunch of smart people. This is essential reading if you are interested in Wikipedia, “Web 2.0,” (via Cosmos)
[Darknet] Index: Fellow bloggers helped inform my understanding of the digital culture wars, especially Dave Winer, Jeff Jarvis, Jay Rosen, Jenny Levine, Marc Canter, Rebecca Blood, Meg Hourihan, Evan Williams, David Sifry, Joi Ito, Jon Lebkowsky, Anil Dash, Mitch Kapor, Seth Finkelstein, Donna Wentworth, James Grimmelmann, Robert Scoble, Mark Cuban, Halley Suitt, David Rothman, Susan Mernit, Mary Hodder, Kevin Heller, Frank Field, Sheila Lennon, Denise Howell, Steve Rubel, Ben Edelman, Tim Jarrett, Derek Powazek, Christopher Lydon, Leonard Witt, Tim Porter, Morrie Johnston, Lisa Rein, Matt Haughey, John Patrick, Mitch Ratcliffe, Om Malik, Christian Crumlish, Ben Hammersley, Scott Matthews, Dave Farber and his mailing list, and countless others.
[Dufoundation.org] Constructing the Digital Universe » Wikipedia: Why are my friends and colleagues online singing the praises of collaboration and social software? Is it because they believe that the collective is all-wise? Maybe there’s some of that going on, somehow–but how, exactly? No one would admit to believing that the collective is all-wise. Do Clay Shirky or Jimmy Wales believe it, for instance, without admitting it to anyone (or, perhaps, to himself)? I very much doubt that they believe it at all, even if they’ve said things that point in that general direction.