Oct. 9: Lanier, Schiff

Stacy Schiff's article "Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?" calls the online encyclopedia "a lumpy work in progress" ([8]). Schiff compares Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Brittanica and other encyclopedias of the past. She recalls the story of Johann Heinrich Zedler, who compiled an encyclopedia in Germany in the 18th century. Book dealers in the area feared that they would be put out of business because Zedler's Universal-Lexicon would "[render] all other books obsolete" ([2]). It seems the information world has the same fears today - Google will annihilate the library and Wikipedia will cause dust to collect on reference shelves. Again I am reminded of the readings we did in the first semester about the emergence of the printing press and how people feared the dissemination of information to the "common folk" would devalue hand-copied manuscripts and the information contained within them. In fact, the exact opposite happened and, as we learned, the more people that have access to information, the better off society is as a whole. Information - the great equalizer. Wikipedia is definitely an interesting experiment but I see no reason to fear it. Schiff notes that since its inception, Wikipedia has instituted policies and procedures to cut down on the amount of hacking and bias. Schiff mentions provenance as one of Wikipedia's main shortcomings. She states that "[t]he bulk of Wikipedia's content originates not in the stacks but on the Web, which offers up everything from breaking news, spin, and gossip to proof that the moon landings never took place" ([8]). This, in my opinion, pretty much proves that Wikipedia will never replace the library or any part of it. As the joke goes, "It's on the Internet, so it must be true." Wikipedia can be a valuable resource for gathering basic information about a subject before actual research takes place but it will never be a substitute for real, reliable resources.

Jaron Lanier's article, ""Digital Maoism: The hazards of the new online collectivism", presents a more chilling look at Wikipedia and its possible repercussions. This article was a very fun read and it actually got my blood pumping a few times. I can completely understand his hysteria with regard to the effects that this new online collectivism might have on society. In the same breath, however, I feel that his is a pretty radical point of view but, hey, I love radical! I think there is real reason to fear the way people tend to use Wikipedia as a reliable source of factual information. As we information professionals know, it is not to be regarded in this way but to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. But I think of the generation of people that are growing up having never known life without the Internet and what they might believe about Wikipedia. It's hard to imagine, having had to research topics in libraries throughout my own life but I imagine that the younger generation might well be fooled into thinking that Wikipedia is the same as any other encyclopedia. Lanier states quite eloquently, "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" ([5]). Again, though, the printing press and even the emergence of radio and television come to mind as I think about Wikipedia's possible side effects. This is just yet another avenue for information and entertainment and to treat is as Satan incarnate is going just a little too far. People just need to be educated about the good and the bad of resources such as Wikipedia. It will be our job as librarians and information professionals to do this.

I found some reactions to Lanier's article on boingboing, which were very insightful. I think Cory Doctorow summed it up best: "Wikipedia isn't great because it's like the Britannica. The Britannica is great at being authoritative, edited, expensive, and monolithic. Wikipedia is great at being free, brawling, universal, and instantaneous". Regardless, I absolutely loved Lanier's article and his take on online collectivism and the hive mentality. I think it takes all kinds of opinions and everyone is entitled to her/his own.