Response to "Digital Maoism"

While reading Jaron Lanier’s essay, “Digital Maoism”, the first question I asked myself is, what is Maoism? I then went online and googled Maoism. To my surprise, Wikipedia was the first site that appeared on the Google rankings. I can see why Lanier says, “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.” I do not fully agree with this statement by Lanier. There are no problems with the way Wikipedia is used. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are books filled with articles on various topics. With Lanier’s own evidence from a study in Nature, Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia are about the same accuracy. How can using Wikipedia as a valid source be dangerous if it has a similar accuracy as an actual Encyclopedia?

I feel that dangerous part of Wikipedia is not the use of it but the anonymity of the authors of the articles. Wikipedia by itself is not that dangerous though. Lanier says, “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.” Wikipedia in its current state seems to be half way to becoming a “supernatural oracle”, but it does not have the potential of becoming an all wise entity. This all wise entity that could control what people think is a scary thing. The anonymous natures of Wikipedia makes Wikipedia have an all-knowing voice, but in many of the articles the voice is just an expert expanding on they’re area of expertise. With an author you can find out what viewpoint or opinion the author could have, but with an anonymous author the opinions of the article are less valued and felt. Even though the opinion is less felt, I believe this loss does not take away from the meaning of the articles written in Wikipedia. The anonymity of the author leaves room for the author to be incorrect which then could be fixed and changed by others who have more expertise. Laneir states that Wikipedia at the least is successful “at revealing what the online people with the most determination and time on their hands are thinking.” In response to that, I would ask Lanier wouldn’t a person that is an authority in a subject be the most persistent in getting the correct information to the public? Such as in his case with Wikipedia, he is no longer referred to as a director mainly, but now known on Wikipedia as mainly a virtual reality developer. Lanier’s persistence in writing, “Digital Maoism”, made the Wikipedia collective notice that he no longer wanted to be know as a director.

I think that Lanier used his example of Wikipedia in the wrong manor, especially in the beginning of his essay. The main thought that Jaron Lanier was trying get across is the there is a downfall to collective action. Wikipedia to me is not a good example of the down fall. Those who care enough to keep Wikipedia updated and as accurate as an encyclopedia do not introduce stupid or imprecise ideas. Wikipedia is not leading to a downfall of the intelligence of the world.