DIGITAL MAOISM THE HAZARDS OF THE NEW ONLINE COLLECTIVISM PDF
Download Citation on ResearchGate | On Jan 1, , Lanier and others published Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism }. In his article “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism” Jaron. Lanier takes a hard look at collectivism and collective action as it relates to. A cautionary inquiry into the unchecked hive mind.
|Published (Last):||9 October 2006|
|PDF File Size:||9.36 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Wikipedia has recently slapped a crude low pass filter on the jitteriest entries, such as “President George W. My point here is not to argue about the existence of Metaphysical entities, but just to emphasize how premature and dangerous it is to lower the expectations we hold for individual human intellects. They seem to place great importance on relating my ideas to those of the psychedelic luminaries of old and in ways that I happen to find sloppy and incorrect.
We think the telephone will be best used to bring opera to America’s living rooms.
The centrality of TV, and indeed of any particular medium, has been in decline for three decades. Second, I myself am an advocate of what I maism “strong collaboration,” exemplified by Wikipedia, in which a work is developed not just by collctivism authors, but a constantly changing battery of authors, none of which “owns” the work. Decrying Idol’s centrality is similarly misdirected. I’m not actually sure there is anyone who genuinely holds this hyperbolic a version of this view.
Article/Review: Digital Maoism, by Jaron Lanier
How to Thrive Online. It proves the dumb thing is smarter than we think. George Dyson has wondered if such an entity already exists on the Net, perhaps perched within Google. In short, it is hard to claim that Wikipedia is built by an anonymous, mindless mob engaged in foolish collectivism.
Posted Jun 13, By avoiding that nonsense, it ought to be possible to find a humanistic and practical way to maximize value of the collective on the Web without turning ourselves into idiots. The first is deep: Now it can be design and hive.
Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism
Epistemic collectivism is a real phenomenon; whether they admit it or not, a lot of people do place the views of the collective uppermost. Consider Lanier’s praise for seeing “the context in which something was written” coupled with his condemnation of the collcetivism brew of the Wikipedia. All intelligence is collective.
Lanier’s piece hits a nerve because human life always exists in tension between our individual and group identities, inseparable and incommensurable. But placed out of hew in the Wikipedia, it becomes drivel. If an ironic Web site devoted to destroying cinema claimed that I was a filmmaker, it would suddenly make sense. But when intelligent design shares the stage with real science in the paper of record, everything is lost.
CPOV | Response to Jaron Lanier’s Digital Maoism
collectiivism For instance, an independent press provides tasty news about politicians by reporters with strong voices and reputations, like the Watergate reporting of Woodward and Bernstein. When there’s a problem, you want it to bark but not bite you. However, the irony of his critique is that Wikipedia is very much the opposite of these aggregator sites. This can lead to a rigid and slow adapting organization, which would eventually cause the end of it.
Kevin’s overburdened “hive mind” te notwithstanding, a networked collaboration is not an absolutely level playing field inhabited by drones. This idea has had dreadful consequences when thrust upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme Left in various historical periods. We don’t blame the toaster for its inability to churn butter.
I’m as tired as anyone of art and thought that exists entirely in the realm of context and reference — but you can’t blame Wikipedia for architecture based on winks to earlier eras or a music culture obsessed with sampling old recordings instead of playing new compositions.
Evolution isn’t blind voting.
Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism () 
There’s more than one approach to any issue, and being able to see multiple versions of them, organized with argument and counter-argument, will do a better job of equipping you to figure out which truth suits you best.
Why isn’t everyone screaming about the recent epidemic of inappropriate uses of the collective? You get to include all sorts of material without committing to anything. If the principle is correct, then individuals should not be required to take on risks or responsibilities.
The emergence of this type of difital policy is one of the fascinating developments in Wikipedia — and yet another way that Wikipedia can be distinguished from an automatic algorithm or mindless crowd.
Wikipedia is great at being free, brawling, universal, and instantaneous. But the things wrong with voting aren’t wrong with editing tools, and the things wrong with ranking algorithms aren’t wrong with aggregators.