For example.
When writing about the editing style of the Wikipedia, Lanier remarks that: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.
In
itself, that's an interesting and important comment. But within the context of
the Wikipedia it takes on almost massive significance. When it comes down to it,
do we really want the anonymity of the Wikipedia? Do we want the "objectified"
approach that an unidentified committee has agreed upon? Quite the opposite. Knowing
who wrote something gives that "something" true contextual meaning.
Neutrality in an encyclopedia can most certainly be considered a virtue, but do
we really want that neutrality on the web? I have to offer my own personal thanks
to Lanier for clarifying this point which had been swimming around in my head
(and on a number of pages) for quite a while, but was in need of his help in order
for me to better understand the source of part of my discomfort toward the Wikipedia.
Of
course Wikipedians can claim that all we have to do is delve into the history
pages of an entry, or view the discussion about a particular topic, to see how
a particular item in the Wikipedia isn't something static, but instead continually
undergoing revision and review. That may well be true, but the fact of the matter
is that very few people would think to do this, and most don't care. For them
(and perhaps correctly) an entry in an encyclopedia is expected to stand on its
own.
Go to:
Do you believe in magic?, or
Go to: A
magic strand?