-Digital Maoism-

Jaron Lanier raises an interesting issue in his discussion of the evolving online collectivism of today. I concur to a large degree with his stance on not allowing the hive-mind to gain too much influence and importance in the scope of the acquisition of knowledge. The way in which he relates this trend to a form of Maoism is rather genius, and would be relatively accurate if such a trend existed. If the online collectivism operated and controlled the realm of knowledge in the manner in which Lanier describes, then he would indeed be right on course in his accusations. However, this is where my agreement with Lanier’s article stops.

The manner in which Lanier introduces Wikipedia as his fundamental backing for the argument against online collectivism is rash and slightly inaccurate. He defines his concern as “not [with] the Wikipedia in itself…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.” It’s nearly impossible to argue against the point that Wikipedia has become a widely used resource, that’s simply fact. Thinking back, I know that I’ve used Wikipedia on numerous occasions throughout the past week to look up some common fundamentals of chemistry that I had forgotten and needed to know for class. The information I received from Wikipedia on this subject was, as most would come to expect, highly accurate and richly detailed. This case is reinforced by the comparison of Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica mentioned in the article, in which the results show Wikipedia prevailing as a viable resource on topics of Science. Lanier attacks these results by stating that it is only in certain situations as these that Wikipedia can become viable. He reinforces this finding in his statement that “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,” as is the case with most knowledge in the world of concrete science and math. In that sense, he is completely accurate in his assumption. However, I think this is the whole point of the matter. He compares Wikipedia to the Britannica as if they are similar, when in reality they are not, nor should they be. The Britannica is meant to be a highly authoritative and totalitarian resource compiled by an elite academic. Wikipedia is expansive, spontaneous, and compiled by involved media elite. They serve two distinct purposes in the acquisition of viable knowledge, and therefore have equal value as academic resources. In no way does this hint towards a sense of digital Maoism, it is simply a balancing of influences between two separate and distinct elites.

What I found interesting was that Lanier actually enforced and supported much of the argument I just gave against his initial claim that online collectivism is becoming a form of Maoism. Therefore, I find his article to be somewhat contradictory in its focal points and statements. This makes his article as a whole appear to be rather fuzzy and unclear in it’s connecting of our current state of online collectivism to that of Maoism, which I see to be a rash and unjustified accusation.