High Octane Troll Food

Recently, I've been reading a lot about a simple experiment that's getting a lot of press. This experiment seems so simple, in fact, that many people assume that it must be terribly subtle and complex. It isn't. This experiment Wikipedia seems complex only because it ignores tradition and common sense. Tradition, after all argues that decisions are best left to experts. Wikipedia however is based on the idea that experts should not be the only "gatekeepers" of information. That information should be "free" not like free as in beer but like without confinement or gates.

Unsurprisingly, many experts hate this idea. Encyclopedia Britannica's very public fight with Wikipedia is one of the most public and telling examples. However other examples are present in both print and blogs across the web. The blogs of the free range librarian are another example of the genre. In one post she writes:

"In Wikipedia's current manifestation, all contributors are on equal footing in terms of editing power and authority (and that's not even getting into the issue of scope; Wikipedia is built haphazardly, like building a library by buying the first fifty books you find walking into Borders). With no editorial workflow, no significant mechanisms for (and no emphasis on) acknowledging authority, and no way to give expertise its due, Wikipedia functions primarily as high-octane troll food, fueling lengthy "Lord of the Flies"-style shout-downs between, on the one hand, cranks and malcontents, and on the other, the vastly outnumbered experts who care to be bothered to contribute in the first place."

In short, she contends that Wikipedia's dependence on primarily knowledge renders it unreliable. The implication is that Wikipedia cannot be considered reliable until it mirrors the librarian's respect for expertise. Professor Paul Cartledge of Cambridge University perfectly encapsulates the distrust of the masses at the base of this type of criticism when he says that academics:

"…deny specifically that the sort of knowledge available to and used by ordinary people, popular knowledge if you like, is really knowledge at all. At best it is merely opinion, and almost always it is ill-informed and wrong."

Professor Cartledge, however was not referring to Wikipedia at all. This excerpt actually refers to the criticism that many academics in Athens shared regarding this idea called Democracy.

Aristotle and Plato, to name but two of the most famous names, considered the ability to govern to be beyond the ability of the common man. The masses could not be trusted. They could be too easily led down dangerous and foolish paths. Demagogues skillful in rhetoric could shift the direction of a nation on a whim.

Government was too important an institution to leave in the hands of the governed. Plato and Aristotle's criticisms like those of their spiritual descendants were eloquent. But, this idea although simple and counterintuitive, was powerful. Democracy was attempted over and over again. Eventually this idea would change the world in ways that no one could have imagined.

 

 

Schneider, K. G. "Free Range Librarian." 22 Mar. 2007

http://freerangelibrarian.com/archives/052905/wikipedia.php

 

Strenski, Ellen, comp. "The Wikipedia/Encyclopaedia Britannica Controversy." University of California, Irvine. 22 Mar. 2007 -http://compositioncafe.com/25950/wikicontroversy.html-.

Cartledge, Paul. "Critics and Critiques of Athenian Democracy". BBC. 22 Mar. 2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekcritics_01.shtml

Cartledge, Paul. "Critics and Critiques of Athenian Democracy". BBC. 22 Mar. 2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_01.shtml

 

Steal ThisBlog

Art is either plagiarism or revolution.

Paul Gauguin

French Post-Impressionist painter (1848 - 1903)

 

Two things happened this week that birthed a thought churning in my gut. First, tragically a few days ago Baudrillard died of cancer. In many ways, he and Umberto Eco framed my first thoughts on the place of copies and originals in reality. Exposure to his thinking influenced my ideas of the real and the hyperreal. Thinking about him again helped me to discover a flaw in my thinking. A few posts ago I asked who gets to determine reality. That was the wrong question. The right question didn't occur to me until a professor Wayne State University brought up Boswell and his dictionary. It made me think of the arguments that Boswell had with ????? about the evolution of language. I realized then that increasingly an assumption is being made, an assumption that "information wants to be free". This assumption is at the heart of documents like the Bellagio Declaration. Scores of bloggers like Laura at Laurablog and the entire team at Stay Free! serve to document the gradual awakening of Western Society to this fact. Although this statement can be heard more and more frequently, few understand its implications. Information has always found a way to make itself free. No matter the obstacle or the condition Information always finds ways of replicating and evolving. This isn't idealism or wishful thinking. It is an observation of history. When print is nonexistent oral traditions spring up. When the transmission of information is suppressed, it is smuggled like the art of Florence before Savranola or schoolbooks in the slave quarters of the antebellum south. It transforms itself like the navigation codes disguised as spirituals sung in the plantations of the south. Other examples are easily seen if you choose to look. Another truism is that past patterns are the best indicators of future performance. For further confirmation read the two page article in Wired in Jan 1994. In this article Rebecca E. Zorach points out some of the parallels between modern techy society and that of the Medieval monastic society. Whether the holders of the information be analog or digital, western or eastern, monastic or hedonist information always spreads and always evolves.

 

Digital Windmills

My last few posts, have tried to address some of the issues voiced by Lawrence Lessig's book Freeculture. This is in no small part due to Lessig's eloquence as a speaker and charming writing style. His ability, unfortunately, far too rare among lecturers allows him to make potentially dull subjects interesting and interesting subjects riveting. Accordingly, I have been greatly enjoying this book and was looking forward to his conclusion. I was certain that the conclusion of this story would share the rational and insightful tone that despite the grim tone consistently comprised the lion share of this work.

Perhaps, this explains why the change in Lessig's tone when recounting the Eldred case and its aftermath was so affecting. Initially, I thought I was merely reacting to the self flagellating tone that increased as he recounted his disappointments. I realized that I was reacting to more than that. In his conclusion, Lessig shares his disillusionment with a system that has been very good to him. This disillusionment reminds us of an important lesson. Although, we may be able to listen to the audio of this case or read an analysis of it. This case is about both far more and far less than abstract theories abour ones and zeros. This is about the actions of individuals. A Wired Article published before the Eldred case perhaps provides the most important lesson Professor Lessig can offer the reader.

From the outside, it seems that Larry Lessig's existence has been privileged. Nice upbringing. Ivy League education, then Cambridge and top law schools. The best clerkships. Tenured law professor. And now an acclaimed author, speaker, and, ultimately, Supreme Court litigator. Yet he doesn't see it that way at all. "I always feel I should have been better at each of those steps. I bring to it this expectation that there's a lot more somebody else could have done."

"So far I've lost, lost at every level."

Yet he continues to try.

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York: Penguin Books, 2004.

Levy, Steven. "Lawrence Lessig's Supreme Showdown." Wired 10 Oct. 2002. 1 Mar. 2007 <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.10/lessig.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=>.

Toasters in a Vast Wasteland

Legislators, spurred by fear and prodded by Industry Lobbyists, are restricting innovation and the culture that spawns it. Lessig documents this devils' bargain in the second third of his book Free Culture. This section documents the increasingly draconian interpretations of intellectual property law. A few posts earlier I shared my thoughts as I read Free Culture. Lawrence Lessig's grasp of the facts and gift for rhetoric remains undeniable. One facet of this thesis leapt out at me.

The issue of monopoly and media concentration is crucial to the United States. Numerous parallels in history exist to demonstrate the dangers to liberty of allowing a small group to be gatekeepers of information. Lessig's description of Congers provides us with cautionary tale. A few words removed however creates an eerie sense of immediacy to remind us how vigilant we must be.

they were increasingly seen as monopolists of the worst kind tools of the crown's repression selling liberty of England to guarantee themselves a monopoly profit…. Many believed the power the booksellers exercised over the spread of knowledge was harming that spread, just at the time the
Enlightenment
was teaching the importance of knowledge and education spread generally. The idea that knowledge should be free was a hallmark of the time and these powerful commercial interests were interfering with that idea.

The historical effects of monopoly is still readily apparent. Its impressions can be found in innumerable places including but not limited to the American Constitution. The most superficial research shows Thomas Jefferson and James Madison greatest concern was not whether Monopolies were good, rather the letters show the two founding fathers discussing whether any monopoly even a temporary one was advisable.

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York: Penguin Books, 2004.

Technology and Intellectual Property

Once upon a time, a man named Thomas Edison had a company called Edison’s Motion Picture Patent Company. This company held the majority of patents relevant to motion picture production. Any producer who wanted to use this technology had to get his express approval. Anyone who tried to create motion pictures without this approval risked being sued by Edison’s infamous legal staff. In hopes of being able to continue to experiment and produce motion pictures a group of artists and producers who called themselves the “independents” decided the best way to avoid Edison’s lawsuits was to move as far from Edison’s base in New Jersey as possible.
They eventually ended up in a small enclave in the western section of Los Angeles whose primary appeal was that its proximity to Mexico allowed for quick getaways if they heard that Edison’s men were on the way. This enclave still exists. Today, Hollywood serves as the entertainment capital of the world.
This story kept coming to mind as I read Lawrence Lessig’s account of the Google Print lawsuit. I found myself thinking of the numerous laws still on the books that document the doomed measures instituted to protect the populace and the stockholder from the dangers of madmen, artists and intellectuals.
Laws, put in place to ensure that drivers of horseless carriages stopped at each railroad crossing and waved red lanterns to warn wandering trains that this automobile intended to cross the tracks. Laws made by people who had carriages of their own and drivers for those carriages. People who had never driven an automobile in their lives and they didn’t plan to. Why would they? After all, automobiles scared horses. It never occurred to them that they might be the last of a dying breed.
The ever increasing changes in technology and the increased rate of patent issues related encourages individuals to forget that this is not a technology issue. Thomas Jefferson addresses this issue however in the letter he wrote to Isaac McPherson on August 13th 1813.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."

Thomas Jefferson was not just a founding father he was also a revolutionary an inventor and the first patent examiner.

Jefferson, Thomas. Portable Thomas Jefferson. Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin, 1977.
"Thomas Edison." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 17 Feb. 2007 <>
Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity, New York: Penguin Press, 2004. 368 pages.

a brilliant summary of a complex issue.

A brilliant summary of an often misunderstood issue

This is simply the clearest quickest explanation. I have ever seen related to why Web 2.0 might actually be more than hype. I heartily recommend every student in IWTP take a gander at it.

Students & Cavemen

This week, I would like to discuss two very different readings. The first is a collaboration between Ben Vershbow, McKenzie Wark and Jesse Wilbur and the internet community named GAM3R 7H30RY.

Mackenzie Wark is best known as the author or the Hacker’s Manifesto. No, not that one the other one. In his newest work Mr. Wark continues the unfortunate pattern of naming books based on “current” and “hip” cyber vocabulary. GAM3R 7H30RY’s obnoxious title serves as a strike against it and the text of GAM3R 7H30RY does little to redeem it.

I discovered, however that I enjoy the naked ambition of its ideas.

GAM3R 7H30RY, like the product of many revolutionaries, intellectuals and other madmen seems built with no concept of scale. From reading the section entitled about the project it is clear that the intent of their experiment is simply to help shape the evolution of the printed word as well as the act of reading. In the first few pages, however, they stop to “reappropriate” Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. In so doing it is transformed into (as it has been suggested in their own text/comment) the allegory of the C.A.V.E. This new interpretation illustrates, or at least attempts to illustrate the nature of Game Theory and its intersection with ontological questions of reality.

This makes it an interesting counterpoint to to James Paul Gee’s book “What Video Games have to Teach us about Learning and Literacy.” Gee’s Chapter on Learning and Identity is refreshing in its simplicity. Gee addresses the question of identity and some of its effects on learning. Gee explains how the creation of a virtual identity can serve as a key to different perspectives and help initiate new learning styles.

Gee, James Paul. "Learning and Identity." What Video Games have to Teach us about Learning and Literacy. 2003. Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY.

Wark, McKenzie. "About This Project." GAM3R 7H3ORY. 22 May 2006. The Institute for the Future of the Book. 2 Feb. 2007-http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/?page_id=2- .

Wark, McKenzie. "Agony." GAM3ER 7H3ORY. 22 May 2006. The Instuite for the Future of the Book. 6 Feb. 2007 -http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/?p=1-.