Who says we know - by Larry Sanger

In my Dutch newspaper, NRC, an interesting article about wikipedia mentioned an Edge essay by Larry Sanger: "Who says we know". The essay is long, but well-written and worth the read. I was surprised to run into the essay in the newspaper. Did I miss all the discussion about this essay? Or is everybody still thinking about it's contents?
Basically this essay questions the "epistemic egalitarianism" adagium of Wikipedia. Simply stated: everybody is equal, an expert is not more (knowledgable) than a non-expert, together we define what is true. Sanger's main critique is that "Wikipedia, places Truth in the service of Equality." And if he had to choose between the two he's "on the side of Truth". This does not imply that Sanger is against Wikipedia or that he doesn't see all the good Wikipedia has brought. But he'd like to see a more prominent, distinguished role for experts in Wikipedia.
I understand the point he's making. And, though I too am enthralled by the success of Wikipedia, I also wonder how Wikipedia will solve, for instance, the "edit wars", that Sanger also mentions. Don't we need a mediator/expert to end those wars? Or can we simply allow two definitions to one entry?
Another solution could be to get in between Sanger and Wikipedia. Every now and then we would let experts in Wikipedia and have them correct, extend, etc. the entries. After they've come in, we let "the rest of the world" in, etc. In this way we have expert and non-expert "waves".
Anyway, Sanger's essay teaches us, again, that the Web requires us to develop our judging skills. In the Internet era it's more important than ever before that we learn to look up different sources, compare, choose and finally judge, instead of simply copy-pasting.
The essay is reviewed by a couple of thoughtleaders (such as Leadbeater). Some agree with Sanger, some don't. I'm curious what Tapscott and Williams (authors of Wikinomics) think of this essay!


Update Aug. 5, 2011: also refer to Macrowikinomics, p. 362 about collectivism.

Comments

  1. AnonymousJuly 13, 2007 at 10:10 AM

    The expert and non-expert "waves" at Wikipedia would be analogous to allowing professional artists to paint the walls of a stately building, only to allow the awaiting crowds outside to afterward come in to paint graffiti all over it. You might still see some of the original work underneath it all, but no artist will even bother with the initial painting knowing what awaits his or her work once completed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownJuly 13, 2007 at 11:52 AM

    Thanks for your comment, Stephen. You could be right. But is that what we see daily? Do people listen to experts and turn around and say: "I disagree"? Most people would listen carefully and try to correct/improve the expert's statement. Like I'm doing now.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please leave a comment! Just log in using one of the formats and if you want me to get back to you. Otherwise comment anonymously.

Popular posts

Keep the Intranet Small

Image
This tweet by Jonathan Phillips ( @digitaljonathan ) triggered to finalize this post, that's been burning in my draft box. I've always been intrigued by how unsuccessful many intranets are. And there are all kinds of good reasons for intranet failure. One of the things that is hardly ever mentioned is: Shouldn't the intranet be smaller? Usually intranets are huge. Lots and lots of pages with lots and lots of content. With complex navigation. The intranet  evaluation surveys almost always show employees only use the news page and people finder. But still we build and maintain nice big intranets. Not only stats point to smaller intranets. There are others reasons as well. I came up with a few. If you have more, just leave a comment. Here's my list: -            user requirements: users don't require large intranet -            search/navigation: searching and navigating a small intranet is easier than in a large intranet -            mobile: the content of the
Read more

Enterprise 2.0 Research

Image
There's not too much fundamental research on Enterprise 2.0. Deloitte recently published interesting research done on enterprise 2.0 implementations and their return-on-investment. In the EU research has also done as well. Study is being done for the European Commission and it was carried out by Tech4i2, IDC and Headshift. What was the goal of the study? Goals of the study To provide a clear definition of Enterprise 2.0 is, describe the market and the positioning of EU industry, also in comparison with US and Asia; To analyze the take-up of Enterprise 2.0, the organizational requirements, and the role on the transition to a knowledge based low-carbon economy; To collect evidence on its macro-economic impact, as a market opportunity for the European Software industry and as a productivity tool for European business; To identify and analyse both the direct and contextual challenges, including the need for Next Generation Access and the legal barriers; To analyse an
Read more

Innovation in Turbulent Times

Image
I love reading articles about innovation. And every now and then you read one that is very interesting. "Innovation in Turbulent Times" by Rigby, Gruver, Allen (in HBR, June 2009) is one of them. This article takes fashion companies as an example for continuous, year-by-year innovation. And how successful fashion companies are usually led by two people: a left-brainer and a right-brainer. "If you don't have highly creative people in positions of real authority, you won't get innovation. Most companies in other industries ignore this lesson." They extend this to show that successful non-fashion companies have the same kind of leadership. And this kind of leadership is usually also characterized by a long-term relationship. I think this concept can also be extended to teams and projects as well. More often than not, people are good at one or the other: thinking up great concepts or ideas, or, making them. In teams and projects we can learn from this as
Read more