Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism By Jaron Lanier - The Diigo Meta page

• 18 Sep 09
  

  Daniel Jimearth

  collectivism collaboration culture technology wikipedia web2.0 community social

• 17 Sep 09
  

  Jose Quesada

  wikipedia collaboration web2.0 social technology

  • Accuracy in a text is not enough. A desirable
    text is more than a collection of accurate references. It is also
    an expression of personality.
  • Google
    News is for the moment better funded and enjoys a more secure future
    than most of the rather small number of fine reporters around the
    world who ultimately create most of its content. The aggregator is
    richer than the aggregated.
  • 1 more annotations...
  • • As a consultant, I used to be asked to test an idea or propose a
      new one to solve a problem. In the last couple of years I've often
      been asked to work quite differently. You might find me and the other
      consultants filling out survey forms or tweaking edits to a collective
      essay
• 

  Dallas McPheeters
  • There's a frantic race taking
    place online to become the most "Meta" site, to be the
    highest level aggregator, subsuming the identity of all other sites".
• 12 Sep 09
  

  daniel okeefe
  • Sometimes loosely structured collective activities yield continuous
    improvements and sometimes they don't
  • Later in this essay I'll point out what constraints
    make a collective smart
  • 35 more annotations...
  • • Since search engines are now more likely to point you
      to the wikified versions, the Web has lost some of its flavor in
      casual use
    • When you see the context in which something was written and you
      know who the author was beyond just a name, you learn so much more
      than when you find the same text placed in the anonymous, faux-authoritative,
      anti-contextual brew of the Wikipedia.
    • A voice should be sensed as a whole. You have to have a chance
      to sense personality in order for language to have its full meaning
    • If an ironic Web site devoted to destroying cinema claimed that
      I was a filmmaker, it would suddenly make sense. That would be an
      authentic piece of text. But placed out of context in the Wikipedia,
      it becomes drivel.
    • 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.
    • The beauty of the Internet is that it connects people. The value
      is in the other people. If we start to believe that the Internet itself
      is an entity that has something to say, we're devaluing those people
      and making ourselves into idiots.
    • The
      question of new business models for content creators on the Internet
      is a profound and difficult topic in itself, but 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.
    • It is having a profound influence on how decisions are made
      in America.
    • we are witnessing today is the alarming rise of the fallacy
      of the infallible collective. Numerous elite organizations have been
      swept off their feet by the idea. T
    • It's
      not hard to see why the fallacy of collectivism has become so popular
      in big organizations: If the principle is correct, then individuals
      should not be required to take on risks or responsibilities.
    • We
      live in times of tremendous uncertainties coupled with infinite
      liability phobia, and we must function within institutions that are
      loyal to no executive, much less to any lower level member. Every
      individual who is afraid to say the wrong thing within his or her
      organization is safer when hiding behind a wiki or some other Meta
      aggregation ritual.  
    • I've participated in a number of elite, well-paid wikis and Meta-surveys
      lately and have had a chance to observe the results. I have even
      been part of a wiki about wikis. What I've seen is a loss of insight
      and subtlety, a disregard for the nuances of considered opinions,
      and an increased tendency to enshrine the official or normative beliefs
      of an organization.
    • For instance, there's a demonstrative ritual often
      presented to incoming students at business schools. In one version
      of the ritual, a large jar of jellybeans is placed in the front of
      a classroom. Each student guesses how many beans there are. While
      the guesses vary widely, the average is usually accurate to an uncanny
      degree.
    • The phenomenon is real, and immensely useful.
    • The reason the collective can be valuable is precisely that its peaks
      of intelligence and stupidity are not the same as the ones usually
      displayed by individuals. Both kinds of intelligence are essential.

    • 
      

      There are certain types of answers that ought not be provided by
      an individual. When a government bureaucrat sets a price, for instance,
      the result is often inferior to the answer that would come from a
      reasonably informed collective that is reasonably free of manipulation
      or runaway internal resonances. But when a collective designs a product,
      you get design by committee, which is a derogatory expression for
      a reason.

    • Here
      I must take a moment to comment on Linux and similar efforts. The
      various formulations of "open" or "free" software
      are different from the Wikipedia and the race to be most Meta in
      important ways. Linux programmers are not anonymous and in fact
      personal glory is part of the motivational engine that keeps such
      enterprises in motion. But there are similarities, and the lack
      of a coherent voice or design sensibility in an esthetic sense
      is one negative quality of both open source software and the Wikipedia.
    • These movements are at their most efficient while building hidden
      information plumbing layers, such as Web servers. They are hopeless
      when it comes to producing fine user interfaces or user experiences.
    • The collective is good at solving problems
      which demand results that can be evaluated by uncontroversial performance
      parameters, but it is bad when taste and judgment matter
    • Here is a quick pass at where I think the boundary
      between effective collective thought and nonsense lies
    • The collective
      is more likely to be smart when it isn't defining its own questions,
      when the goodness of an answer can be evaluated by a simple result
      (such as a single numeric value,) and when the information system
      which informs the collective is filtered by a quality control mechanism
      that relies on individuals to a high degree. Under those circumstances,
      a collective can be smarter than a person. Break any one of those
      conditions and the collective becomes unreliable or worse.
    • Meanwhile, an individual best achieves optimal stupidity on those
      rare occasions when one is both given substantial powers and insulated
      from the results of his or her actions
    • If the above criteria have any merit, then there is an unfortunate
      convergence. The setup for the most stupid collective is also the
      setup for the most stupid individuals.
    • If the above criteria have any merit, then there is an unfortunate
      convergence. The setup for the most stupid collective is also the
      setup for the most stupid individuals.
    • Every
      authentic example of collective intelligence that I am aware of
      also shows how that collective was guided or inspired by well-meaning
      individuals. These people focused the collective and in some cases
      also corrected for some of the common hive mind failure modes
    • The balancing of influence between people and collectives is the
      heart of the design of democracies, scientific communities, and
      many other long-standing projects.
    • ithout
      an independent press, composed of heroic voices, the collective becomes
      stupid and unreliable, as has been demonstrated in many historical
      instances. (Recent events in America have reflected the weakening
      of the press, in my opinion.)
    • Without
      an independent press, composed of heroic voices, the collective becomes
      stupid and unreliable, as has been demonstrated in many historical
      instances. (Recent events in America have reflected the weakening
      of the press, in my opinion.)
    • Scientific
      communities likewise achieve quality through a cooperative process
      that includes checks and balances, and ultimately rests on a foundation
      of goodwill and "blind" elitism — blind in the sense
      that ideally anyone can gain entry, but only on the basis of a
      meritocracy. The tenure system and many other aspects of the academy
      are designed to support the idea that individual scholars matter,
      not just the process or the collective.
    • Even though setting an interest rate sounds like the answering
      of a question, it is really more like the asking of a question. The
      Fed asks the market to answer the question of how to best optimize
      for lowering inflation, for instance. While that might not be the
      question everyone would want to have asked, it is at least coherent.
    • Some of the regulating mechanisms for collectives that have been
      most successful in the pre-Internet world can be understood in part
      as modulating the time domain
    • One service performed by representative democracy is low-pass filtering.
      Imagine the jittery shifts that would take place if a wiki were put
      in charge of writing laws. It's a terrifying thing to consider. Super-energized
      people would be struggling to shift the wording of the tax-code on
      a frantic, never-ending basis. The Internet would be swamped.
    • What is crucial
      to notice about modernity is that structure and constraints were
      part of what sped up the process of technological development,
      not just pure openness and concessions to the collective.
    • If wikis are to gain any more influence they ought to
      be improved by mechanisms like the ones that have worked tolerably
      well in the pre-Internet world.
    • Jaron
      Lanier is a film director.
• 01 Sep 09
  

  Christine Gardella

  wikipedia community collectivism web2.0 collaboration culture technology social

  • Every time my Wikipedia entry is corrected, within a day I'm turned
    into a film director again
  • Reading
    a Wikipedia entry is like reading the bible closely. There are
    faint traces of the voices of various anonymous authors and editors,
    though it is impossible to be sure.
  • 22 more annotations...
  • • the problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded
      and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly.
    • And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online
      collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea
      that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence
      concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with
      the most verity and force. This is different from representative
      democracy, or meritocracy. This idea has had dreadful consequences
      when thrust upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme Left
      in various historical periods. The fact that it's now being re-introduced
      today by prominent technologists and futurists, people who in many
      cases I know and like, doesn't make it any less dangerous.
    • I have noticed specific texts get cloned from original sites at universities
      or labs onto wiki pages. And when that happens, each text loses part
      of its value.
    • A voice should be sensed as a whole. You have to have a chance
      to sense personality in order for language to have its full meaning.
    • If you want to research a TV show in terms of what people think of
      it, Myspace will reveal more to you than the analogous and enormous
      entries in the Wikipedia.
    • In all of these formulations, real people were still in
      charge. An individual or individuals were presenting a personality
      and taking responsibility.
    • In the last year or two the trend has been to remove the scent
      of people, so as to come as close as possible to simulating the appearance
      of content emerging out of the Web as if it were speaking to us as
      a supernatural oracle. This is where the use of the Internet crosses
      the line into delusion.
    • But at the layer of popurls, the
      ice cream story and the Javanese earthquake are at best equals, without
      context or authorship.
    • The problem with that presumption is that people are
      all too willing to lower standards in order to make the purported
      newcomer appear smart.
    • 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.
    • If we start to believe that the Internet itself
      is an entity that has something to say, we're devaluing those people
      and making ourselves into idiots.
    • The aggregator is
      richer than the aggregated.
    • What we are witnessing today is the alarming rise of the fallacy
      of the infallible collective. Numerous elite organizations have been
      swept off their feet by the idea. They are inspired by the rise of
      the Wikipedia, by the wealth of Google, and by the rush of entrepreneurs
      to be the most Meta. Government agencies, top corporate planning
      departments, and major universities have all gotten the bug.
    • Every
      individual who is afraid to say the wrong thing within his or her
      organization is safer when hiding behind a wiki or some other Meta
      aggregation ritual.  
    • It seems to me
      the reason is that bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they
      are packaged as technology.
    • The exception is
      American Idol.
    • But John Lennon wouldn't have won. He wouldn't have made it to the
      finals. Or if he had, he would have ended up a different sort of
      person and artist.
    • It's safer to be the aggregator of the collective. You
      get to include all sorts of material without committing to anything.
      You can be superficially interesting without having to worry about
      the possibility of being wrong.
    • What makes a market work, for instance, is the marriage of collective
      and individual intelligence. A marketplace can't exist only on the
      basis of having prices determined by competition. It also needs entrepreneurs
      to come up with the products that are competing in the first place.
    • Yes,
      there have been plenty of scandals in government, the academy and
      in the press. No mechanism is perfect, but still here we are, having
      benefited from all of these institutions.
    • History has shown us again and again that a hive
      mind is a cruel idiot when it runs on autopilot. Nasty hive mind
      outbursts have been flavored Maoist, Fascist, and religious, and
      these are only a small sampling. I don't see why there couldn't be
      future social disasters that appear suddenly under the cover of technological
      utopianism.
    • 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.
• 25 Jul 09
  

  Chris Andrews

  collectivism collaboration web2.0 article culture technology wikipedia

  • hive mind
  • foolish collectivism
  • 30 more annotations...
  • • be most Meta
    • (as happens when someone can interact with the notorious
      Microsoft paper clip,)
    • At the very least it's a success at revealing
      what the online people with the most determination and time on
      their hands are thinking, and that's actually interesting information.
    • And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online
      collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea
      that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence
      concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with
      the most verity and force. This is different from representative
      democracy, or meritocracy.
    • Accuracy in a text is not enough. A desirable
      text is more than a collection of accurate references. It is also
      an expression of personality.
    • each text loses part
      of its value.
    • same text placed in the anonymous, faux-authoritative,
      anti-contextual brew of the Wikipedia. The question isn't just one of authentication
      and accountability, though those are important, but something more
      subtle. A voice should be sensed as a whole. You have to have a chance
      to sense personality in order for language to have its full meaning
    • Myspace is a richer, multi-layered, source of information than the
      Wikipedia, although the topics the two services cover barely overlap.
      If you want to research a TV show in terms of what people think of
      it, Myspace will reveal more to you than the analogous and enormous
      entries in the Wikipedia.
    • supernatural oracle.
    • It is not mentioned on popurls
    • "There's
      no better way to watch the hive mind." 
    • iscomfort
      with so-called "Artificial Intelligence" and the race
      to erase personality and be most Meta.
    • anonymous collectivism
    • ower the expectations we hold for individual
      human intellects.
    • If we start to believe that the Internet itself
      is an entity that has something to say
    • that new business models for people who
      think and write have not appeared as quickly as we all hoped
    • most authors need to be paid to take that time
    • blogging is not writing
    • reactive
    • the alarming rise of the fallacy
      of the infallible collective
    • the wrong thing within his or her
      organization is safer when hiding behind a wiki or some other Meta
      aggregation ritual
    • This
      is an example of the special kind of intelligence offered by a
      collective. It is that peculiar trait that has been celebrated
      as the "Wisdom of Crowds," though I think the word "wisdom" is
      misleading. It is part of what makes Adam Smith's Invisible Hand
      clever, and is connected to the reasons Google's page rank algorithms
      work. It was long ago adapted to futurism, where it was known as
      the Delphi technique. The phenomenon is real, and immensely useful.
    • 
      
      The reason the collective can be valuable is precisely that its peaks
      of intelligence and stupidity are not the same as the ones usually
      displayed by individuals. Both kinds of intelligence are essential.
    • They are hopeless
      when it comes to producing fine user interfaces or user experiences
    • he collective
      is more likely to be smart when it isn't defining its own questions,
      when the goodness of an answer can be evaluated by a simple result
      (such as a single numeric value,) and when the information system
      which informs the collective is filtered by a quality control mechanism
      that relies on individuals to a high degree

      • 

        Chris Andrews on 2009-07-25

        Essentially, when it operates according to an expert-driven & -led paradigm. This is to the dearth of individual agency.
    • personality-based
      quality control
    • No mechanism is perfect, but still here we are, having
      benefited from all of these institutions.
    • We might
      still need something better sooner.
    • wikitopians
    • The
      hive mind should be thought of as a tool. Empowering the collective
      does not empower individuals — just the reverse is true.
      There can be useful feedback loops set up between individuals and
      the hive mind, but the hive mind is too chaotic to be fed back
      into itself.
• 23 Apr 09
  

  papasan5
  • I have attempted
    to retire from directing films in the alternative universe that is
    the Wikipedia a number of times, but somebody always overrules me.
    Every time my Wikipedia entry is corrected, within a day I'm turned
    into a film director again.
  • For instance, most of the technical or scientific information that
    is in the Wikipedia was already on the Web before the Wikipedia was
    started. You could always use Google or other search services to
    find information about items that are now wikified.
  • 1 more annotations...
  • • Myspace is a richer, multi-layered, source of information than the
      Wikipedia, although the topics the two services cover barely overlap.
• 04 Mar 09
  

  Michel Bauwens

  P2P-Politics P2P-Intersubjectivity P2P

• 23 Nov 08
  

  Gerhard Stoltz

  individual collective technology community culture wikipedia collaboration stupidity intelligence aggregation

  • that
    is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism
    that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective
    is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in
    a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity
    and force.

  • Just as people are willing to bend over
    backwards and make themselves stupid in order to make an AI interface
    appear smart (as happens when someone can interact with the notorious
    Microsoft paper clip,) so are they willing to become uncritical
    and dim in order to make Meta-aggregator sites appear to be coherent."

    
    

  • 10 more annotations...
  • • Sometimes loosely structured collective activities yield continuous
      improvements and sometimes they don't.
    • That
      new magnitude of Meta-ness lasted only amonth. In April, Kelly reviewed
      a site called "popurls" that aggregates consensus Web
      filtering sites...and there was a new "most Meta". We
      now are reading what a collectivity algorithm derives from what
      other collectivity algorithms derived from what collectives chose
      from what a population of mostly amateur writers wrote anonymously.
    • Kevin
      Kelly says of the "popurls" site, "There's
      no better way to watch the hive mind."  But
      the hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why
      pay attention to it?
    • 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
    • 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.

    • 
      

      I've participated in a number of elite, well-paid wikis and Meta-surveys
      lately and have had a chance to observe the results. I have even
      been part of a wiki about wikis. What I've seen is a loss of insight
      and subtlety, a disregard for the nuances of considered opinions,
      and an increased tendency to enshrine the official or normative beliefs
      of an organization.

    • Collectives can be just as stupid as any individual, and in important
      cases, stupider. The interesting question is whether it's possible
      to map out where the one is smarter than the many.
    • Meanwhile, an individual best achieves optimal stupidity on those
      rare occasions when one is both given substantial powers and insulated
      from the results of his or her actions.

    • 
      

      Scientific
      communities likewise achieve quality through a cooperative process
      that includes checks and balances, and ultimately rests on a foundation
      of goodwill and "blind" elitism — blind in the sense
      that ideally anyone can gain entry, but only on the basis of a
      meritocracy

    • History has shown us again and again that a hive
      mind is a cruel idiot when it runs on autopilot.
• 06 Nov 08
  

  WG

  web2.0 tagging taxonomy

• 24 Oct 08
  

  Anette Seiler

  folksonomien web2.0

• 

  africangirl

  folksonomien web2.0 delicious

• 21 Sep 08
  

  Steve Sorden

  connectivism cck08

• 18 Sep 08
  

  Joost Robben

  cck08 web2.0 collaboration culture

• 24 Aug 08
  

  nicaif
• 28 Jul 08
  

  evgeny yauhenio

  The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?
  
  The problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly

  collectivism web2.0 technology collaboration culture community wikipedia social

• 28 Jun 08
  

  Jeff Stanzler

  Links 504

• 19 Jun 08
  

  Alejandro Tortolini

  Jaron Lanier y el "Maoismo digital".

  jaron_lanier lanier digital maoism maoismo ensayo articulo critica antiweb2.0 articles edge web2.0 wikipedia collectivism culture technology social wiki community

• 08 Jun 08
  

  Sam King

  Library Science - Wikis 2.0 Reference import

• 15 May 08
  

  Fernanda Ibarra

  The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism

  collectiveintelligence

• 04 May 08
  

  Ethan Jewett

  wikipedia collectivism collaboration culture technology social community essay

• 

  keith lovett
• 02 May 08
  

  zettel klotz

  theorie hypertext essay Literatur

• 28 Feb 08
  

  isaac Mao

  Collectivism Knowledge

• 21 Feb 08
  

  Paul Ryan

  collectivism culture technology wiki wikipedia

• 05 Jan 08
  

  Stephan lamprecht

  artikel collaboration web2.0

• 15 Dec 07
  

  Jeffrey Quiros

  collectivism

• 24 Nov 07
  

  Ted Perlmutter

  socialsoftware wikipedia wisdomofcrowds collaboration community ws009

  • the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used;
    how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly. And that
    is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism
    that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective
    is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in
    a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity
    and force.
  • only online
    fetish site for foolish collectivism
  • 1 more annotations...

  • • No, the problem is
      in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it's been
      elevated to such importance so quickly. And that is part of the larger pattern
      of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a
      resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to
      have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with
      the most verity and force. This is different from representative democracy, or
      meritocracy. This idea has had dreadful consequences when thrust upon us from
      the extreme Right or the extreme Left in various historical periods. The fact
      that it's now being re-introduced today by prominent technologists and
      futurists, people who in many cases I know and like, doesn't make it any less
      dangerous.

• 20 Nov 07
  

  Rafael Alvarado

  inf virtual-community

• 30 Oct 07
  

  thesoapdish

  collaboration collectivism critique education theory web2.0

• 21 Oct 07
  

  Mr. Spraul

  collectivism culture social systems technology

• 13 Oct 07
  

  Bill Freese

  Jaron Lanier's article warning against the hazard of the hive mind.

  jaronlanier hivemind web2.0 wikipedia MEA-MFThandouts

• 18 Sep 07
  

  Mack Lundy

  collaboration collectivism socialnetworking web2.0 wikipedia

• 04 Sep 07
  

  Nicholas Timmons

  ksuanth theory

• 30 Aug 07
  

  m cassimatis

  comp scientist & digital visionary Jaro nLanier finds faults wh he terms th new online collectivsm: "readg a Wikipedia entry is like readg the bible closely. faint traces of th voices of various anonymous authors & editors"/I like traces of varied voices

  z0708 wkp

• 04 Jul 07
  

  Gene Roche

  By Jaron Lanier

  Class

• 21 Jun 07
  

  John Martin

  amateurism collectivism digital lanier maoism web2.0

  • In "Digital Maosim",
    an original essay written for Edge, computer scientist and digital
    visionary Jaron Lanier finds fault with what he terms the new online
    collectivism.
• 28 Apr 07
  

  topyli

  community internet networking news science web2.0 wikipedia

• 08 Apr 07
  

  tony curzon price

  identity populism wikipedia

  • The
    hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention
    to it?
• 02 Apr 07
  

  Juha Siltala
• 30 Mar 07
  

  Roberto UEM

  Artigo do criador do termo 'Realidade Virtual' que fala sobre como a coletividade pode ser perigosa.
  Realista ou Paranóico?

  community folksonomy people social software collectivism wikipedia web2.0 toread

• 20 Mar 07
  

  doug_lss

  readit

• 24 Feb 07
  

  Zee ----------

  applied collectivism post-this read-this

  • The
    hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention
    to it?

    
    

    The
    problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and
    used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly. And
    that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online
    collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea
    that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence
    concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with
    the most verity and force. This is different from representative
    democracy, or meritocracy. This idea has had dreadful consequences
    when thrust upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme Left
    in various historical periods. The fact that it's now being re-introduced
    today by prominent technologists and futurists, people who in many
    cases I know and like, doesn't make it any less dangerous.

    
    

    DIGITAL
    MAOISM:

• 15 Feb 07
  

  caravia

  activism

• 06 Jan 07
  

  Jaap Walhout

  wiki

• 30 Dec 06
  

  tuffnellpark

  development internet digital maoism Research Information Theory

  • The problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly. And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force. This is different from representative democracy, or meritocracy. This idea has had dreadful consequences when thrust upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme Left in various historical periods. The fact that it's now being re-introduced today by prominent technologists and futurists, people who in many cases I know and like, doesn't make it any less dangerous.
• 21 Dec 06
  

  Carlos Hornelas

  DIGITAL MAOISM:
  The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism

  maoismo maoism wiki wikipedia delicious

• 20 Dec 06
  

  Alphonse Scaf

  Jaron Lanier web2.0

• 14 Dec 06
  

  anja c. wagner

  collective wiki blogs intelligence

• 13 Dec 06
  

  Andreas Rohlfs

  Internet

  • The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?
    
    The problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly. And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force. This is different from representative democracy, or meritocracy. This idea has had dreadful consequences when thrust upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme Left in various historical periods. The fact that it's now being re-introduced today by prominent technologists and futurists, people who in many cases I know and like, doesn't make it any less dangerous.
• 14 Nov 06
  

  glen gatin

  knowledge philosophy web3.0 wikipedia CCK08

• 13 Nov 06
  

  lebird

  collective mind; digital library link

• 29 Oct 06
  

  Sean Hackbarth
• 20 Oct 06
  

  Michel Roland

  antiwikipedia collectivism culture technology wikipedia wikis

• 02 Oct 06
  

  klg

  esay society

• 22 Sep 06
  

  Michal Škop

  The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?
  
  The problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly. And that is part of the larger pattern of the a

  Technology

• 06 Sep 06
  

  Ron Lubensky

  collaboration collectivism cscl wiki wikipedia

• 23 Aug 06
  

  marco campana

  thinking culture jaron_lanier collaboration

• 

  Settlement AtWork

  thinking culture jaron_lanier collaboration

• 12 Aug 06
  

  hickstro

  Critique of wikis and collective writing

  Wikis

• 09 Aug 06
  

  Cercamon Joglar

  wikipedia autorité

  • the problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded
    and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly.
    And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online
    collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea
    that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence
    concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with
    the most verity and force. This is different from representative
    democracy, or meritocracy. This idea has had dreadful consequences
    when thrust upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme Left
    in various historical periods. The fact that it's now being re-introduced
    today by prominent technologists and futurists, people who in many
    cases I know and like, doesn't make it any less dangerous.
  • A desirable
    text is more than a collection of accurate references. It is also
    an expression of personality.
  • 21 more annotations...
  • • Myspace is a richer, multi-layered, source of information than the
      Wikipedia, although the topics the two services cover barely overlap.
      If you want to research a TV show in terms of what people think of
      it, Myspace will reveal more to you than the analogous and enormous
      entries in the Wikipedia.
    • The
      Wikipedia is far from being the only online fetish site for foolish
      collectivism. There's a frantic race taking place online to become
      the most "Meta" site,
      to be the highest level aggregator, subsuming the identity of all
      other sites.
    • That
      new magnitude of Meta-ness lasted only amonth. In April, Kelly reviewed
      a site called "popurls" that aggregates consensus Web
      filtering sites...and there was a new "most Meta". We
      now are reading what a collectivity algorithm derives from what
      other collectivity algorithms derived from what collectives chose
      from what a population of mostly amateur writers wrote anonymously.
    • Just as people are willing to bend over
      backwards and make themselves stupid in order to make an AI interface
      appear smart (as happens when someone can interact with the notorious
      Microsoft paper clip,) so are they willing to become uncritical
      and dim in order to make Meta-aggregator sites appear to be coherent.
    • The beauty of the Internet is that it connects people. The value
      is in the other people. If we start to believe that the Internet itself
      is an entity that has something to say, we're devaluing those people
      and making ourselves into idiots.
    • 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.
    • 
      
      The reason the collective can be valuable is precisely that its peaks
      of intelligence and stupidity are not the same as the ones usually
      displayed by individuals. Both kinds of intelligence are essential.
    • he lack
      of a coherent voice or design sensibility in an esthetic sense
      is one negative quality of both open source software and the Wikipedia.
    • The collective
      is more likely to be smart when it isn't defining its own questions,
      when the goodness of an answer can be evaluated by a simple result
      (such as a single numeric value,) and when the information system
      which informs the collective is filtered by a quality control mechanism
      that relies on individuals to a high degree. Under those circumstances,
      a collective can be smarter than a person. Break any one of those
      conditions and the collective becomes unreliable or worse.
    • Without
      an independent press, composed of heroic voices, the collective becomes
      stupid and unreliable, as has been demonstrated in many historical
      instances. (Recent events in America have reflected the weakening
      of the press, in my opinion.)
    • Scientific
      communities likewise achieve quality through a cooperative process
      that includes checks and balances, and ultimately rests on a foundation
      of goodwill and "blind" elitism — blind in the sense
      that ideally anyone can gain entry, but only on the basis of a
      meritocracy. The tenure system and many other aspects of the academy
      are designed to support the idea that individual scholars matter,
      not just the process or the collective.
    • The calming effect of orderly democracy achieves more than just the
      smoothing out of peripatetic struggles for consensus. It also reduces
      the potential for the collective to suddenly jump into an over-excited
      state when too many rapid changes to answers coincide in such a way
      that they don't cancel each other out. (Technical readers will recognize
      familiar principles in signal processing.)
    • The reverse problem can also appear. The hive mind can be on the
      right track, but moving too slowly. Sometimes collectives would yield
      brilliant results given enough time but there isn't enough time.
      A problem like global warming would automatically be addressed eventually
      if the market had enough time to respond to it, for instance. Insurance
      rates would climb, and so on. Alas, in this case there isn't enough
      time, because the market conversation is slowed down by the legacy
      effect of existing investments. Therefore some other process has
      to intervene, such as politics invoked by individuals.
    • What is crucial
      to notice about modernity is that structure and constraints were
      part of what sped up the process of technological development,
      not just pure openness and concessions to the collective.
    • Another
      example of the slow hive problem: There was a lot of technology
      developed slowly in the millennia before there was a clear idea
      of how to be empirical, how to have a peer reviewed technical literature
      and an education based on it, and before there was an efficient
      market to determine the value of  inventions.
      What is crucial
      
      
      to notice about modernity is that structure and constraints were
      
      
      part of what sped up the process of technological development,
      
      
      not just pure openness and concessions to the collective.
      
    • History has shown us again and again that a hive
      mind is a cruel idiot when it runs on autopilot. Nasty hive mind
      outbursts have been flavored Maoist, Fascist, and religious, and
      these are only a small sampling. I don't see why there couldn't be
      future social disasters that appear suddenly under the cover of technological
      utopianism.
    • The
      hive mind should be thought of as a tool. Empowering the collective
      does not empower individuals — just the reverse is true.
      There can be useful feedback loops set up between individuals and
      the hive mind, but the hive mind is too chaotic to be fed back
      into itself.
    • Jaron
      
      Lanier is a film director
      
    • In
      "Digital Maosim", an original essay written for Edge, computer
      scientist and digital visionary Jaron Lanier finds fault with what he terms
      the new online collectivism. He cites as an example the Wikipedia, noting
      that "reading a Wikipedia entry is like reading the bible closely. There
      are faint traces of the voices of various anonymous authors and editors,
      though it is impossible to be sure".
    • I have attempted
      to retire from directing films in the alternative universe that is
      the Wikipedia a number of times, but somebody always overrules me.
    • Kevin
      Kelly says of the "popurls" site, "There's
      no better way to watch the hive mind."  But
      the hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why
      pay attention to it?
• 26 Jul 06
  

  Will Bolton

  community culture delicious futurism google ideas internet jaron_lanie media opinion politics science search social technology web_2.0 wikis

• 12 Jul 06
  

  Carlos Santos

  article internet toread essay wikipedia media JaronLanier

• 05 Jul 06
  

  José Mota

  articles edge magazines collectivism lanier tese

• 25 Jun 06
  

  Ian Delaney

  The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?

  collaboration socialnetworking web2.0

• 19 Jun 06
  

  M C Morgan

  by JARON LANIER

  wikipedia wikis knowledgeproduction socialpractices credibility collectivism

• 

  Esmail Yazdanpour

  "reading a Wikipedia entry is like reading the bible closely. There are faint traces of the voices of various anonymous authors and editors, though it is impossible to be sure"

  web2.0 anarchism blogs collaboration community culture future media philosophy politics research social society theory toRead Web wikipedia wiki

• 16 Jun 06
  

  maria

  collective

  • the question of whether a collective can be
    
    smart is so fascinating. Accuracy in a text is not enough. A desirable
    
    
    text is more than a collection of accurate references. It is also
    
    
    an expression of personality.
    
  • When you see the context in which something was written and you
    know who the author was beyond just a name, you learn so much more
    than when you find the same text placed in the anonymous, faux-authoritative,
    anti-contextual brew of the Wikipedia.
  • 7 more annotations...
  • • A voice should be sensed as a whole.
    • Myspace is a richer, multi-layered, source of information than the
      Wikipedia, although the topics the two services cover barely overlap.
      If you want to research a TV show in terms of what people think of
      it, Myspace will reveal more to you than the analogous and enormous
      entries in the Wikipedia.
    • In the last year or two the trend has been to remove the scent
      of people, so as to come as close as possible to simulating the appearance
      of content emerging out of the Web as if it were speaking to us as
      a supernatural oracle. This is where the use of the Internet crosses
      the line into delusion.
    • There
      is a pedagogical connection between the culture of Artificial Intelligence
      and the strange allure of anonymous collectivism online. Google's
      vast servers and the Wikipedia are both mentioned frequently as
      being the startup memory for Artificial Intelligences to come.
      Larry Page is quoted via a link presented to me by popurls this
      morning (who knows if it's accurate) as speculating that an AI
      might appear within Google within a few years. George Dyson has
      wondered if such an entity already exists on the Net, perhaps perched
      within Google. 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.
    • The beauty of the Internet is that it connects people. The value
      is in the other people. If we start to believe that the Internet itself
      is an entity that has something to say, we're devaluing those people
      and making ourselves into idiots.
    • How
      could the Times have fallen so far? I don't know, but I would imagine
      the process was similar to what I've seen in the consulting world
      of late. It's safer to be the aggregator of the collective. You
      get to include all sorts of material without committing to anything.
      You can be superficially interesting without having to worry about
      the possibility of being wrong.
    • 
      The reason the collective can be valuable is precisely that its peaks
      of intelligence and stupidity are not the same as the ones usually
      displayed by individuals. Both kinds of intelligence are essential.
• 13 Jun 06
  

  tho mas

  Medienwissenschaf Politik Geschichte Kulturwissenschaft Computer _ Internet

  • The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?
    
    The problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly. And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force. This is different from representative democracy, or meritocracy. This idea has had dreadful consequences when thrust upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme Left in various historical periods. The fact that it's now being re-introduced today by prominent technologists and futurists, people who in many cases I know and like, doesn't make it any less dangerous.
• 01 Jun 06
  

  Thomas Kalka

  toread cooperation hivemind for:mbauwens for:deliciousdante

Public Stiky Notes

• 
  Chris Andrews on 2009-07-25
  Essentially, when it operates according to an expert-driven & -led paradigm. This is to the dearth of individual agency.

Page Comments

• 
  Ian Delaney on 2006-07-15
  The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?
• 
  Ian Delaney on 2006-08-02
  The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.