Christopher Lydon had me on in the final segment of Open Source Radio to talk with Jaron Lanier about his article, “Digital Maoism.” I came on after James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds argued with Jaron about whether crowds are ever wise, although there was more agreement than argument. Suroweicki made one of the right points: Jaron focuses on a few examples that Jaron considers to be negative, slighting the importance of collective thinking in top down environments.

Then Ze Frank , the comedian, came on to talk about his experience letting readers write comedy for him on a wiki. He was the most serious and thoughtful of us all, I thought. Damn comedians. (I’m a big Ze Frank fan.)

Then I came on. I’m not happy with how I did. I tried to say that Jaron is warning us of something, but his examples of the danger don’t hold up and, even if they did, they are exceptions, not a trend. The article focuses heavily on Wikipedia. But the Web isn’t really becoming like Wikipedia, and Wikipedia isn’t the result of “hive mind,” which I take to mean people who all believe the same thing, just as Maoists supposedly all chant out of the Little Red Book. In truth, Wikipedia results from vigorous conversation (and some rigorous administration, but I left that out), the opposite of hive mind. Not to mention, I don’t agree that Wikipedia is an example of what’s wrong with the Web. Yes, it’s voiceless, but that’s appropriate for an encyclopedia, and it is definitely not typical of the Web. Jaron denied that he meant “hive mind” as anything negative — then what is his article about? — and repeatedly went back to his unsupported assertion that anonymity dehumanizes discussions. (I have a cheap suspicion that his animosity towards anonymity has something to do with the fact that Jaron is a highly visible public personality and thus thinks we all should be equally comfortable speaking strongly in public. But we’re not all like that.)

BTW, Jaron claimed on-air that his research shows that the more edited a Wikipedia article is, the less accurate it is. I wish I’d said that that research should have been included in “Digital Maoism.” It would have made the piece much stronger. I hope he publishes that research now.

And since this is my blog, I’m going to take the opportunity to dispute Jaron’s on-air denial that his article is mainly negative about blogging. Here is the substantive paragraph about blogging:

…it must at least be pointed out that writing professionally and well takes time and that most authors need to be paid to take that time. In this regard, blogging is not writing. For example, it’s easy to be loved as a blogger. All you have to do is play to the crowd. Or you can flame the crowd to get attention. Nothing is wrong with either of those activities. What I think of as real writing, however, writing meant to last, is something else. It involves articulating a perspective that is not just reactive to yesterday’s moves in a conversation.

If you’re going to lob handgrenades, you ought not later claim that the handgrenades were meant only in the best sense.

Clay Shirky’s excellent response to Jaron’s article is here. You can listen to the Radio Open Source show in its entirety here. I’m afraid to. [Tags: jaron_lanier open_source_radio wikipedia digital_culture ze_frank james_surowiecki]

Categories: Uncategorized dw