Response to Jaron Lanier

Although Jaron Lanier makes many sweeping statements about the disadvantages of online collectivism, he does raise many good points as well. Many websites that try to offer a wide breadth of information often come up short because they do not describe the background of the facts sufficiently well. Lanier discusses this concept in some detail, and I tend to agree with his points about online collectivism in general and Wikipedia specifically.

In high school, one of the main concepts that all of my teachers stressed was the necessity to think critically: to decide for yourself what was important to take away from a reading or a lesson. Because I went to a Catholic school, I had a theology class every day. It became especially important to think about the biases of the authors of position papers regarding moral issues because many people speak from their own experiences or discuss their own beliefs. In these cases, it is important to decide whether or not these authors can back up their seemingly extreme claims with evidence. One of the biggest disadvantages of Wikipedia or other similar sites is that the reader cannot easily learn more about the author of these articles. In many cases, this is not a big problem because the material is fairly straightforward and is not open to much interpretation. In some cases however, it is a serious disadvantage not to be able to find out more about an author. In these instances, it is hard to know what, if any, evidence supports certain claims.

One other important point that Lanier raises is the fact that the information loses its narrative voice when many people string bits and pieces of information together. He points out that “Even Britannica has an editorial voice, which some people have criticized as being vaguely too ‘Dead White Men’”. He then goes on to say that online collectivism destroys this editorial voice because, for all intents and purposes, there is no editor to create an overriding voice. Lanier argues that a “desirable text is more than a collection of accurate references,” but rather it expresses something about the qualities of the author. Online collectivism, in driving out any editorial voice, also removes these expressions of character, and it follows, according to Lanier, that online collectivism is weaker for it. I agree that the character of the author is very important to understanding the work as a whole. As we learn more about the author’s background and hear the voice that the author chooses to share with us, we can get a better feel for what importance the information has for the author. I find that when I try to decide how accurate information is, the voice that the author has plays an important role in the final decision.

Jaron Lanier raises several very strong points. That said, Wikipedia and other forms of online collectivism are here to stay: they are unrivaled when it comes to convenience in research. The fact that some of the background information is sacrificed is overcome by the sheer volume of information that can be quickly presented to the reader. Overall, Lanier points out the biggest flaws with online collectivism, but his objections, while valid, do not outweigh the fact that Wikipedia is one of the easiest ways to get information quickly.