Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the N...
Home
About Edge
Features
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/l...
Edge Editions
Press
Edge Search
Subscribe
The hive mind is for the mos t part s tupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?
The problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and us ed; how
it's been elevated to s uch importance s o quickly. And that is part of the larger
pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivis m that is nothing les s than a
res urgence of the idea that the collective is all-wis e, that it is des irable to have
influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the
mos t verity and force. This is different from repres entative democracy, or
meritocracy. This idea has had dreadful cons equences when thrus t upon us from
the extreme Right or the extreme Left in various his torical periods . The fact that
it's now being re-introduced today by prominent technologis ts and futuris ts ,
people who in many cas es I know and like, does n't make it any les s dangerous .
DIGITA L MA OISM:
The Hazards of t he New Online Collect ivism [5.30.06]
By J aron L anier
A n Edge Original Essay
Int roduct ion
I n "D igital M aos im", an original es s ay written for Edge, c omputer s c ientis t
and digital vis ionary J aron L anier finds fault with what he terms the new
online c ollec tivis m. H e c ites as an example the Wikipedia, noting that
"reading a Wikipedia entry is like reading the bible c los ely. T here are faint
trac es of the voic es of various anonymous authors and editors , though it is
impos s ible to be s ure".
H is problem is not with the unfolding experiment of the Wikipedia its elf, but
"the way the Wikipedia has c ome to be regarded and us ed; how it's been
elevated to s uc h importanc e s o quic kly. A nd that is part of the larger pattern
of the appeal of a new online c ollec tivis m that is nothing les s than a
res urgenc e of the idea that the c ollec tive is all- wis e, that it is des irable to
have influenc e c onc entrated in a bottlenec k that c an c hannel the c ollec tive
with the mos t verity and forc e. T his is different from repres entative
democ rac y, or meritoc rac y. T his idea has had dreadful c ons equenc es when
thrus t upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme L eft in various
1 of 11
01/27/2009 12:56 PM
Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the N...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/l...
his toric al periods . T he fac t that it's now being re- introduc ed today by
prominent tec hnologis ts and futuris ts , people who in many c as es I know and
like, does n't make it any les s dangerous ".
A nd he notes that "the Wikipedia is far from being the only online fetis h s ite
for foolis h c ollec tivis m. T here's a frantic rac e taking plac e online to bec ome
the mos t "M eta" s ite, to be the highes t level aggregator, s ubs uming the
identity of all other s ites ".
Where is this leading? L anier c alls attention to the "s o- c alled 'A rtific ial
I ntelligenc e' and the rac e to eras e pers onality and be mos t M eta. I n eac h
c as e, there's a pres umption that s omething like a dis tinc t kin to individual
human intelligenc e is either about to appear any minute, or has already
appeared. T he problem with that pres umption is that people are all too willing
to lower s tandards in order to make the purported newc omer appear s mart.
J us t as people are willing to bend over bac kwards and make thems elves
s tupid in order to make an A I interfac e appear s mart (as happens when
s omeone c an interac t with the notorious M ic ros oft paper c lip,) s o are they
willing to bec ome unc ritic al and dim in order to make M eta- aggregator s ites
appear to be c oherent."
Read on as J aron L anier throwns a lit M olotov c oc ktail down towards P alo
A lto from up in the Berkeley H ills ...
—J B
THE REA LITY CLUB:Res pons es to L anier's es s ay from D ouglas Rus hkoff,
Q uentin H ardy, Y oc hai Benkler, C lay Shirky, C ory D oc torow, Kevin Kelly,
E s ther D ys on, L arry Sanger, Fernanda V iegas & M artin Wattenberg, J immy
Wales , G eorge D ys on, D an G illmor, H oward Rheingold
PRESS: Slashdot , Sueddeut sche Zeit ung, perlent aucher.de, Die Welt , Inside
Higher Ed, Sueddeut sche Zeit ung, A rt e & Let ters Daily, BoingBoing, New
York Times, Open Democracy, The Guardian [click here]
DIGITA L MA OISM
(J A RO N L A N I E R:) M y Wikipedia entry identifies me (at leas t this week) as a
film direc tor. I t is true I made one experimental s hort film about a dec ade
and a half ago. T he c onc ept was awful: I tried to imagine what M aya D eren
would have done with morphing. I t was s hown onc e at a film fes tival and was
never dis tributed and I would be mos t c omfortable if no one ever s ees it
again.
I n the real world it is eas y to not direc t films . I have attempted to retire from
direc ting films in the alternative univers e that is the Wikipedia a number of
times , but s omebody always overrules me. E very time my Wikipedia entry is
c orrec ted, within a day I 'm turned into a film direc tor again. I c an think of no
more s uitable punis hment than making thes e determined Wikipedia goblins
ac tually watc h my one s mall old movie.
T wic e in the pas t s everal weeks , reporters have as ked me about my
filmmaking c areer. T he fantas ies of the goblins have entered that portion of
the world that is attempting to remain real. I know I 've gotten off eas y. T he
errors in my Wikipedia bio have been (at leas t prior to the public ation of this
2 of 11
01/27/2009 12:56 PM
Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the N...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/l...
artic le) c harming and even flattering.
Reading a Wikipedia entry is like reading the bible c los ely. T here are faint
trac es of the voic es of various anonymous authors and editors , though it is
impos s ible to be s ure. I n my partic ular c as e, it appears that the goblins are
probably members or des c endants of the rather s weet old Mondo 2000
c ulture linking ps yc hedelic experimentation with c omputers . T hey s eem to
plac e great importanc e on relating my ideas to thos e of the ps yc hedelic
luminaries of old (and in ways that I happen to find s loppy and inc orrec t.)
E dits deviating from this s et of odd ideas that are important to this one
partic ular s mall s ubc ulture are immediately removed. T his makes s ens e.
Who els e would volunteer to pay that muc h attention and do all that work?
T he problem I am c onc erned with here is not the Wikipedia in its elf. I t's been
c ritic ized quite a lot, es pec ially in the las t year, but the Wikipedia is jus t one
experiment that s till has room to c hange and grow. A t the very leas t it's a
s uc c es s at revealing what the online people with the mos t determination and
time on their hands are thinking, and that's ac tually interes ting information.
N o, the problem is in the way the Wikipedia has c ome to be regarded and
us ed; how it's been elevated to s uc h importanc e s o quic kly. A nd that is part
of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online c ollec tivis m that is nothing
les s than a res urgenc e of the idea that the c ollec tive is all- wis e, that it is
des irable to have influenc e c onc entrated in a bottlenec k that c an c hannel
the c ollec tive with the mos t verity and forc e. T his is different from
repres entative democ rac y, or meritoc rac y. T his idea has had dreadful
c ons equenc es when thrus t upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme
L eft in various his toric al periods . T he fac t that it's now being re- introduc ed
today by prominent tec hnologis ts and futuris ts , people who in many c as es I
know and like, does n't make it any les s dangerous .
T here was a well- public ized s tudy in Nature las t year c omparing the
ac c urac y of the Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica. T he res ults were a tos s
up, while there is a lingering debate about the validity of the s tudy. T he
items s elec ted for the c omparis on were jus t the s ort that Wikipedia would do
well on: Sc ienc e topic s that the c ollec tive at large does n't c are muc h about.
"Kinetic is otope effec t" or "V es alius , A ndreas " are examples of topic s that
make the Britannica hard to maintain, bec aus e it takes work to find the right
authors to res earc h and review a multitude of divers e topic s . But they are
perfec t for the Wikipedia. T here is little c ontrovers y around thes e items , plus
the N et provides ready ac c es s to a reas onably s mall number of c ompetent
s pec ialis t graduate s tudent types pos s es s ing the manic motivation of youth.
A c ore belief of the wiki world is that whatever problems exis t in the wiki will
be inc rementally c orrec ted as the proc es s unfolds . T his is analogous to the
c laims of H yper- L ibertarians who put infinite faith in a free market, or the
H yper- L efties who are s omehow able to s it through c ons ens us dec is ionmaking proc es s es . I n all thes e c as es , it s eems to me that empiric al
evidenc e has yielded mixed res ults . Sometimes loos ely s truc tured
c ollec tive ac tivities yield c ontinuous improvements and s ometimes they
don't. O ften we don't live long enough to find out. L ater in this es s ay I 'll
point out what c ons traints make a c ollec tive s mart. But firs t, it's important
to not los e s ight of values jus t bec aus e the ques tion of whether a c ollec tive
c an be s mart is s o fas c inating. A c c urac y in a text is not enough. A des irable
text is more than a c ollec tion of ac c urate referenc es . I t is als o an
expres s ion of pers onality.
For ins tanc e, mos t of the tec hnic al or s c ientific information that is in the
3 of 11
01/27/2009 12:56 PM
Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the N...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/l...
Wikipedia was already on the Web before the Wikipedia was s tarted. Y ou
c ould always us e G oogle or other s earc h s ervic es to find information about
items that are now wikified. I n s ome c as es I have notic ed s pec ific texts get
c loned from original s ites at univers ities or labs onto wiki pages . A nd when
that happens , eac h text los es part of its value. Sinc e s earc h engines are now
more likely to point you to the wikified vers ions , the Web has los t s ome of its
flavor in c as ual us e.
When you s ee the c ontext in whic h s omething was written and you know who
the author was beyond jus t a name, you learn s o muc h more than when you
find the s ame text plac ed in the anonymous , faux- authoritative,
anti- c ontextual brew of the Wikipedia. T he ques tion is n't jus t one of
authentic ation and ac c ountability, though thos e are important, but
s omething more s ubtle. A voic e s hould be s ens ed as a whole. Y ou have to
have a c hanc e to s ens e pers onality in order for language to have its full
meaning. P ers onal Web pages do that, as do journals and books . E ven
Britannica has an editorial voic e, whic h s ome people have c ritic ized as being
vaguely too "D ead White M en."
I f an ironic Web s ite devoted to des troying c inema c laimed that I was a
filmmaker, it would s uddenly make s ens e. T hat would be an authentic piec e
of text. But plac ed out of c ontext in the Wikipedia, it bec omes drivel.
M ys pac e is another rec ent experiment that has bec ome even more
influential than the Wikipedia. L ike the Wikipedia, it adds jus t a little to the
powers already pres ent on the Web in order to ins pire a dramatic s hift in us e.
M ys pac e is all about authors hip, but it does n't pretend to be all- wis e. Y ou
c an always tell at leas t a little about the c harac ter of the pers on who made a
M ys pac e page. But it is very rare indeed that a M ys pac e page ins pires even
the s lightes t c onfidenc e that the author is a trus tworthy authority. H urray for
M ys pac e on that c ount!
M ys pac e is a ric her, multi- layered, s ourc e of information than the Wikipedia,
although the topic s the two s ervic es c over barely overlap. I f you want to
res earc h a T V s how in terms of what people think of it, M ys pac e will reveal
more to you than the analogous and enormous entries in the Wikipedia.
T he Wikipedia is far from being the only online fetis h s ite for foolis h
c ollec tivis m. T here's a frantic rac e taking plac e online to bec ome the mos t
"M eta" s ite, to be the highes t level aggregator, s ubs uming the identity of all
other s ites .
T he rac e began innoc ently enough with the notion of c reating direc tories of
online des tinations , s uc h as the early inc arnations of Y ahoo. T hen c ame
A ltaV is ta, where one c ould s earc h us ing an inverted databas e of the c ontent
of the whole Web. T hen c ame G oogle, whic h added page rank algorithms .
T hen c ame the blogs , whic h varied greatly in terms of quality and
importanc e. T his lead to M eta- blogs s uc h as Boing Boing, run by identified
humans , whic h s erved to aggregate blogs . I n all of thes e formulations , real
people were s till in c harge. A n individual or individuals were pres enting a
pers onality and taking res pons ibility.
T hes e Web- bas ed des igns as s umed that value would flow from people. I t
was s till c lear, in all s uc h des igns , that the Web was made of people, and
that ultimately value always c ame from c onnec ting with real humans .
E ven G oogle by its elf (as it s tands today) is n't M eta enough to be a problem.
O ne layer of page ranking is hardly a threat to authors hip, but an
4 of 11
01/27/2009 12:56 PM
Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the N...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/l...
ac c umulation of many layers c an c reate a meaningles s murk, and that is
another matter.
I n the las t year or two the trend has been to remove the s c ent of people, s o
as to c ome as c los e as pos s ible to s imulating the appearanc e of c ontent
emerging out of the Web as if it were s peaking to us as a s upernatural orac le.
T his is where the us e of the I nternet c ros s es the line into delus ion.
Kevin Kelly, the former editor of Whole Earth Review and the founding
E xec utive E ditor of Wired, is a friend and s omeone who has been thinking
about what he and others c all the "H ive M ind." H e runs a Webs ite c alled Cool
Tools that's a c ros s between a blog and the old Whole Earth Catalog. O n Cool
Tools , the c ontributors , inc luding me, are not a hive bec aus e we are
identified.
I n M arc h, Kelly reviewed a variety of "C ons ens us Web filters " s uc h as
"D igg" and "Reddit" that as s emble material every day from all the myriad of
other aggregating s ites . Suc h s ites intend to be more M eta than the s ites
they aggregate. T here is no pers on taking res pons ibility for what appears on
them, only an algorithm. T he hope s eems to be that the mos t M eta s ite will
bec ome the mother of all bottlenec ks and rec eive infinite funding.
T hat new magnitude of M eta- nes s las ted only amonth. I n A pril, Kelly
reviewed a s ite c alled "popurls " that aggregates c ons ens us Web filtering
s ites ...and there was a new "mos t M eta". We now are reading what a
c ollec tivity algorithm derives from what other c ollec tivity algorithms derived
from what c ollec tives c hos e from what a population of mos tly amateur
writers wrote anonymous ly.
I s "popurls " any good? I am writing this on M ay 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 . I n the las t few
days an experimental approac h to diabetes management has been
announc ed that might prevent nerve damage. T hat's huge news for tens of
millions of A meric ans . I t is not mentioned on popurls . P opurls does c lue us
in to this news : "Student s ets s imultaneous world ic e c ream- eating rec ord,
wors t ever ic e c ream headac he." M ains tream news s ourc es all lead today
with a s erious earthquake in J ava. P opurls inc ludes a few mentions of the
event, but they are buried within the aggregation of aggregate news s ites like
G oogle N ews . T he reas on the quake appears on popurls at all c an be
dis c overed only if you dig through all the aggregating layers to find the
original s ourc es , whic h are thos e rare entries ac tually c reated by
profes s ional writers and editors who s ign their names . But at the layer of
popurls , the ic e c ream s tory and the J avanes e earthquake are at bes t
equals , without c ontext or authors hip.
Kevin Kelly s ays of the "popurls " s ite, "T here's no better way to watc h the
hive mind." But the hive mind is for the mos t part s tupid and boring. Why
pay attention to it?
Readers of my previous rants will notic e a parallel between my dis c omfort
with s o- c alled "A rtific ial I ntelligenc e" and the rac e to eras e pers onality and
be mos t M eta. I n eac h c as e, there's a pres umption that s omething like a
dis tinc t kin to individual human intelligenc e is either about to appear any
minute, or has already appeared. T he problem with that pres umption is that
people are all too willing to lower s tandards in order to make the purported
newc omer appear s mart. J us t as people are willing to bend over bac kwards
and make thems elves s tupid in order to make an A I interfac e appear s mart
(as happens when s omeone c an interac t with the notorious M ic ros oft paper
c lip,) s o are they willing to bec ome unc ritic al and dim in order to make
5 of 11
01/27/2009 12:56 PM
Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the N...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/l...
M eta- aggregator s ites appear to be c oherent.
T here is a pedagogic al c onnec tion between the c ulture of A rtific ial
I ntelligenc e and the s trange allure of anonymous c ollec tivis m online.
G oogle's vas t s ervers and the Wikipedia are both mentioned frequently as
being the s tartup memory for A rtific ial I ntelligenc es to c ome. L arry P age is
quoted via a link pres ented to me by popurls this morning (who knows if it's
ac c urate) as s pec ulating that an A I might appear within G oogle within a few
years . G eorge D ys on has wondered if s uc h an entity already exis ts on the
N et, perhaps perc hed within G oogle. M y point here is not to argue about the
exis tenc e of M etaphys ic al entities , but jus t to emphas ize how premature and
dangerous it is to lower the expec tations we hold for individual human
intellec ts .
T he beauty of the I nternet is that it c onnec ts people. T he value is in the
other people. I f we s tart to believe that the I nternet its elf is an entity that
has s omething to s ay, we're devaluing thos e people and making ours elves
into idiots .
C ompounding the problem is that new bus ines s models for people who think
and write have not appeared as quic kly as we all hoped. N ews papers , for
ins tanc e, are on the whole fac ing a grim dec line as the I nternet takes over
the feeding of c urious eyes that hover over morning c offee and even wors e,
c las s ified ads . I n the new environment, G oogle N ews is for the moment
better funded and enjoys a more s ec ure future than mos t of the rather s mall
number of fine reporters around the world who ultimately c reate mos t of its
c ontent. T he aggregator is ric her than the aggregated.
T he ques tion of new bus ines s models for c ontent c reators on the I nternet is
a profound and diffic ult topic in its elf, but it mus t at leas t be pointed out that
writing profes s ionally and well takes time and that mos t authors need to be
paid to take that time. I n this regard, blogging is not writing. For example,
it's eas y to be loved as a blogger. A ll you have to do is play to the c rowd. O r
you c an flame the c rowd to get attention. N othing is wrong with either of
thos e ac tivities . What I think of as real writing, however, writing meant to
las t, is s omething els e. I t involves artic ulating a pers pec tive that is not jus t
reac tive to yes terday's moves in a c onvers ation.
T he artific ial elevation of all things M eta is not c onfined to online c ulture. I t
is having a profound influenc e on how dec is ions are made in A meric a.
What we are witnes s ing today is the alarming ris e of the fallac y of the
infallible c ollec tive. N umerous elite organizations have been s wept off their
feet by the idea. T hey are ins pired by the ris e of the Wikipedia, by the wealth
of G oogle, and by the rus h of entrepreneurs to be the mos t M eta.
G overnment agenc ies , top c orporate planning departments , and major
univers ities have all gotten the bug.
A s a c ons ultant, I us ed to be as ked to tes t an idea or propos e a new one to
s olve a problem. I n the las t c ouple of years I 've often been as ked to work
quite differently. Y ou might find me and the other c ons ultants filling out
s urvey forms or tweaking edits to a c ollec tive es s ay. I 'm s aying and doing
muc h les s than I us ed to, even though I 'm s till being paid the s ame amount.
M aybe I s houldn't c omplain, but the ac tions of big ins titutions do matter,
and it's time to s peak out agains t the c ollec tivity fad that is upon us .
I t's not hard to s ee why the fallac y of c ollec tivis m has bec ome s o popular in
big organizations : I f the princ iple is c orrec t, then individuals s hould not be
6 of 11
01/27/2009 12:56 PM
Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the N...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/l...
required to take on ris ks or res pons ibilities . We live in times of tremendous
unc ertainties c oupled with infinite liability phobia, and we mus t func tion
within ins titutions that are loyal to no exec utive, muc h les s to any lower
level member. E very individual who is afraid to s ay the wrong thing within his
or her organization is s afer when hiding behind a wiki or s ome other M eta
aggregation ritual.
I 've partic ipated in a number of elite, well- paid wikis and M eta- s urveys
lately and have had a c hanc e to obs erve the res ults . I have even been part
of a wiki about wikis . What I 've s een is a los s of ins ight and s ubtlety, a
dis regard for the nuanc es of c ons idered opinions , and an inc reas ed tendenc y
to ens hrine the offic ial or normative beliefs of an organization. Why is n't
everyone s c reaming about the rec ent epidemic of inappropriate us es of the
c ollec tive? I t s eems to me the reas on is that bad old ideas look c onfus ingly
fres h when they are pac kaged as tec hnology.
T he c ollec tive ris es around us in multifarious ways . What afflic ts big
ins titutions als o afflic ts pop c ulture. For ins tanc e, it has bec ome notorious ly
diffic ult to introduc e a new pop s tar in the mus ic bus ines s . E ven the mos t
s uc c es s ful entrants have hardly ever made it pas t the firs t album in the las t
dec ade or s o. T he exc eption is A meric an I dol. A s with the Wikipedia, there's
nothing wrong with it. T he problem is its c entrality.
M ore people appear to vote in this pop c ompetition than in pres idential
elec tions , and one reas on for this is the ins tant c onvenienc e of information
tec hnology. T he c ollec tive c an vote by phone or by texting, and s ome vote
more than onc e. T he c ollec tive is flattered and it res ponds . T he winners are
likable, almos t by definition.
But J ohn L ennon wouldn't have won. H e wouldn't have made it to the finals .
O r if he had, he would have ended up a different s ort of pers on and artis t. T he
s ame c ould be s aid about J imi H endrix, E lvis , J oni M itc hell, D uke E llington,
D avid Byrne, G randmas ter Flas h, Bob D ylan (pleas e! ), and almos t anyone
els e who has been vas tly influential in c reating pop mus ic .
A s below, s o above. The New York Times , of all plac es , has rec ently publis hed
op- ed piec es s upporting the ps eudo- idea of intelligent des ign. T his is
as tonis hing. The Times has bec ome the paper of averaging opinions .
Something is los t when A meric an I dol bec omes a leader ins tead of a follower
of pop mus ic . But when intelligent des ign s hares the s tage with real s c ienc e
in the paper of rec ord, everything is los t.
H ow c ould the Times have fallen s o far? I don't know, but I would imagine the
proc es s was s imilar to what I 've s een in the c ons ulting world of late. I t's
s afer to be the aggregator of the c ollec tive. Y ou get to inc lude all s orts of
material without c ommitting to anything. Y ou c an be s uperfic ially interes ting
without having to worry about the pos s ibility of being wrong.
E xc ept when intelligent thought really matters . I n that c as e the average idea
c an be quite wrong, and only the bes t ideas have las ting value. Sc ienc e is
like that.
T he c ollec tive is n't always s tupid. I n s ome s pec ial c as es the c ollec tive c an
be brilliant. For ins tanc e, there's a demons trative ritual often pres ented to
inc oming s tudents at bus ines s s c hools . I n one vers ion of the ritual, a large
jar of jellybeans is plac ed in the front of a c las s room. E ac h s tudent gues s es
how many beans there are. While the gues s es vary widely, the average is
7 of 11
01/27/2009 12:56 PM
Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the N...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/l...
us ually ac c urate to an unc anny degree.
T his is an example of the s pec ial kind of intelligenc e offered by a c ollec tive.
I t is that pec uliar trait that has been c elebrated as the "Wis dom of C rowds ,"
though I think the word "wis dom" is mis leading. I t is part of what makes
A dam Smith's I nvis ible H and c lever, and is c onnec ted to the reas ons
G oogle's page rank algorithms work. I t was long ago adapted to futuris m,
where it was known as the D elphi tec hnique. T he phenomenon is real, and
immens ely us eful.
But it is not infinitely us eful. T he c ollec tive c an be s tupid, too. Witnes s tulip
c razes and s toc k bubbles . H ys teria over fic titious s atanic c ult c hild
abduc tions . Y 2 K mania.
T he reas on the c ollec tive c an be valuable is prec is ely that its peaks of
intelligenc e and s tupidity are not the s ame as the ones us ually dis played by
individuals . Both kinds of intelligenc e are es s ential.
What makes a market work, for ins tanc e, is the marriage of c ollec tive and
individual intelligenc e. A marketplac e c an't exis t only on the bas is of having
pric es determined by c ompetition. I t als o needs entrepreneurs to c ome up
with the produc ts that are c ompeting in the firs t plac e.
I n other words , c lever individuals , the heroes of the marketplac e, as k the
ques tions whic h are ans wered by c ollec tive behavior. T hey put the
jellybeans in the jar.
T here are c ertain types of ans wers that ought not be provided by an
individual. When a government bureauc rat s ets a pric e, for ins tanc e, the
res ult is often inferior to the ans wer that would c ome from a reas onably
informed c ollec tive that is reas onably free of manipulation or runaway
internal res onanc es . But when a c ollec tive des igns a produc t, you get des ign
by c ommittee, whic h is a derogatory expres s ion for a reas on.
H ere I mus t take a moment to c omment on L inux and s imilar efforts . T he
various formulations of "open" or "free" s oftware are different from the
Wikipedia and the rac e to be mos t M eta in important ways . L inux
programmers are not anonymous and in fac t pers onal glory is part of the
motivational engine that keeps s uc h enterpris es in motion. But there are
s imilarities , and the lac k of a c oherent voic e or des ign s ens ibility in an
es thetic s ens e is one negative quality of both open s ourc e s oftware and the
Wikipedia.
T hes e movements are at their mos t effic ient while building hidden
information plumbing layers , s uc h as Web s ervers . T hey are hopeles s when
it c omes to produc ing fine us er interfac es or us er experienc es . I f the c ode
that ran the Wikipedia us er interfac e were as open as the c ontents of the
entries , it would c hurn its elf into impenetrable muc k almos t immediately.
T he c ollec tive is good at s olving problems whic h demand res ults that c an be
evaluated by unc ontrovers ial performanc e parameters , but it is bad when
tas te and judgment matter.
C ollec tives c an be jus t as s tupid as any individual, and in important c as es ,
s tupider. T he interes ting ques tion is whether it's pos s ible to map out where
the one is s marter than the many.
T here is a lot of his tory to this topic , and varied dis c iplines have lots to s ay.
H ere is a quic k pas s at where I think the boundary between effec tive
8 of 11
01/27/2009 12:56 PM
Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the N...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/l...
c ollec tive thought and nons ens e lies : T he c ollec tive is more likely to be
s mart when it is n't defining its own ques tions , when the goodnes s of an
ans wer c an be evaluated by a s imple res ult (s uc h as a s ingle numeric value,)
and when the information s ys tem whic h informs the c ollec tive is filtered by a
quality c ontrol mec hanis m that relies on individuals to a high degree. U nder
thos e c irc ums tanc es , a c ollec tive c an be s marter than a pers on. Break any
one of thos e c onditions and the c ollec tive bec omes unreliable or wors e.
M eanwhile, an individual bes t ac hieves optimal s tupidity on thos e rare
oc c as ions when one is both given s ubs tantial powers and ins ulated from the
res ults of his or her ac tions .
I f the above c riteria have any merit, then there is an unfortunate
c onvergenc e. T he s etup for the mos t s tupid c ollec tive is als o the s etup for
the mos t s tupid individuals .
E very authentic example of c ollec tive intelligenc e that I am aware of als o
s hows how that c ollec tive was guided or ins pired by well- meaning
individuals . T hes e people foc us ed the c ollec tive and in s ome c as es als o
c orrec ted for s ome of the c ommon hive mind failure modes . T he balanc ing of
influenc e between people and c ollec tives is the heart of the des ign of
democ rac ies , s c ientific c ommunities , and many other long- s tanding
projec ts . T here's a lot of experienc e out there to work with. A few of thes e
old ideas provide interes ting new ways to approac h the ques tion of how to
bes t us e the hive mind.
T he pre- I nternet world provides s ome great examples of how
pers onality- bas ed quality c ontrol c an improve c ollec tive intelligenc e. For
ins tanc e, an independent pres s provides tas ty news about politic ians by
reporters with s trong voic es and reputations , like the Watergate reporting of
Woodward and Berns tein. O ther writers provide produc t reviews , s uc h as
Walt M os s berg in The Wall Street Journal and D avid P ogue in The New York
Times . Suc h journalis ts inform the c ollec tive's determination of elec tion
res ults and pric ing. Without an independent pres s , c ompos ed of heroic
voic es , the c ollec tive bec omes s tupid and unreliable, as has been
demons trated in many his toric al ins tanc es . (Rec ent events in A meric a have
reflec ted the weakening of the pres s , in my opinion.)
Sc ientific c ommunities likewis e ac hieve quality through a c ooperative
proc es s that inc ludes c hec ks and balanc es , and ultimately res ts on a
foundation of goodwill and "blind" elitis m — blind in the s ens e that ideally
anyone c an gain entry, but only on the bas is of a meritoc rac y. T he tenure
s ys tem and many other as pec ts of the ac ademy are des igned to s upport the
idea that individual s c holars matter, not jus t the proc es s or the c ollec tive.
A nother example: E ntrepreneurs aren't the only "heroes " of a marketplac e.
T he role of a c entral bank in an ec onomy is not the s ame as that of a
c ommunis t party offic ial in a c entrally planned ec onomy. E ven though
s etting an interes t rate s ounds like the ans wering of a ques tion, it is really
more like the as king of a ques tion. T he Fed as ks the market to ans wer the
ques tion of how to bes t optimize for lowering inflation, for ins tanc e. While
that might not be the ques tion everyone would want to have as ked, it is at
leas t c oherent.
Y es , there have been plenty of s c andals in government, the ac ademy and in
the pres s . N o mec hanis m is perfec t, but s till here we are, having benefited
from all of thes e ins titutions . T here c ertainly have been plenty of bad
reporters , s elf- deluded ac ademic s c ientis ts , inc ompetent bureauc rats , and
9 of 11
01/27/2009 12:56 PM
Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the N...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/l...
s o on. C an the hive mind help keep them in c hec k? T he ans wer provided by
experiments in the pre- I nternet world is "yes ," but only provided s ome
s ignal proc es s ing is plac ed in the loop.
Some of the regulating mec hanis ms for c ollec tives that have been mos t
s uc c es s ful in the pre- I nternet world c an be unders tood in part as modulating
the time domain. For ins tanc e, what if a c ollec tive moves too readily and
quic kly, jittering ins tead of s ettling down to provide a s ingle ans wer? T his
happens on the mos t ac tive Wikipedia entries , for example, and has als o
been s een in s ome s pec ulation frenzies in open markets .
O ne s ervic e performed by repres entative democ rac y is low- pas s filtering.
I magine the jittery s hifts that would take plac e if a wiki were put in c harge of
writing laws . I t's a terrifying thing to c ons ider. Super- energized people would
be s truggling to s hift the wording of the tax- c ode on a frantic , never- ending
bas is . T he I nternet would be s wamped.
Suc h c haos c an be avoided in the s ame way it already is , albeit imperfec tly,
by the s lower proc es s es of elec tions and c ourt proc eedings . T he c alming
effec t of orderly democ rac y ac hieves more than jus t the s moothing out of
peripatetic s truggles for c ons ens us . I t als o reduc es the potential for the
c ollec tive to s uddenly jump into an over- exc ited s tate when too many rapid
c hanges to ans wers c oinc ide in s uc h a way that they don't c anc el eac h other
out. (T ec hnic al readers will rec ognize familiar princ iples in s ignal
proc es s ing.)
T he Wikipedia has rec ently s lapped a c rude low pas s filter on the jitteries t
entries , s uc h as "P res ident G eorge W. Bus h." T here's now a limit to how
often a partic ular pers on c an remove s omeone els e's text fragments . I
s us pec t that this will eventually have to evolve into an approximate mirror of
democ rac y as it was before the I nternet arrived.
T he revers e problem c an als o appear. T he hive mind c an be on the right
trac k, but moving too s lowly. Sometimes c ollec tives would yield brilliant
res ults given enough time but there is n't enough time. A problem like global
warming would automatic ally be addres s ed eventually if the market had
enough time to res pond to it, for ins tanc e. I ns uranc e rates would c limb, and
s o on. A las , in this c as e there is n't enough time, bec aus e the market
c onvers ation is s lowed down by the legac y effec t of exis ting inves tments .
T herefore s ome other proc es s has to intervene, s uc h as politic s invoked by
individuals .
A nother example of the s low hive problem: T here was a lot of tec hnology
developed s lowly in the millennia before there was a c lear idea of how to be
empiric al, how to have a peer reviewed tec hnic al literature and an educ ation
bas ed on it, and before there was an effic ient market to determine the value
of inventions . What is c ruc ial to notic e about modernity is that s truc ture and
c ons traints were part of what s ped up the proc es s of tec hnologic al
development, not jus t pure opennes s and c onc es s ions to the c ollec tive.
L et's s uppos e that the Wikipedia will indeed bec ome better in s ome ways , as
is c laimed by the faithful, over a period of time. We might s till need
s omething better s ooner.
Some wikitopians explic itly hope to s ee educ ation s ubs umed by wikis . I t is
at leas t pos s ible that in the fairly near future enough c ommunic ation and
educ ation will take plac e through anonymous I nternet aggregation that we
c ould bec ome vulnerable to a s udden dangerous empowering of the hive
10 of 11
01/27/2009 12:56 PM
Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the N...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/l...
mind. H is tory has s hown us again and again that a hive mind is a c ruel idiot
when it runs on autopilot. N as ty hive mind outburs ts have been flavored
M aois t, Fas c is t, and religious , and thes e are only a s mall s ampling. I don't
s ee why there c ouldn't be future s oc ial dis as ters that appear s uddenly under
the c over of tec hnologic al utopianis m. I f wikis are to gain any more influenc e
they ought to be improved by mec hanis ms like the ones that have worked
tolerably well in the pre- I nternet world.
T he hive mind s hould be thought of as a tool. E mpowering the c ollec tive
does not empower individuals — jus t the revers e is true. T here c an be us eful
feedbac k loops s et up between individuals and the hive mind, but the hive
mind is too c haotic to be fed bac k into its elf.
T hes e are jus t a few ideas about how to train a potentially dangerous
c ollec tive and not let it get out of the yard. When there's a problem, you want
it to bark but not bite you.
T he illus ion that what we already have is c los e to good enough, or that it is
alive and will fix its elf, is the mos t dangerous illus ion of all. By avoiding that
nons ens e, it ought to be pos s ible to find a humanis tic and prac tic al way to
maximize value of the c ollec tive on the Web without turning ours elves into
idiots . T he bes t guiding princ iple is to always c heris h individuals firs t.
Jaron Lanier is a film director. He writes a monthly column for D is c over
Magazine.
J aron L anier's Edge Bio P age
On "Digit al Maoism: The Hazards of t he New Online Collect ivism" By Jaron
Lanier
Res pons es to L anier's es s ay from D ouglas Rus hkoff, Q uentin H ardy, Y oc hai
Benkler, C lay Shirky, C ory D oc torow, Kevin Kelly, E s ther D ys on, L arry
Sanger, Fernanda V iegas & M artin Wattenberg, J immy Wales , G eorge D ys on,
D an G illmor, H oward Rheingold
[ P roc eed to the dis c us s s ion... ]
John Brockman, Edit or and Publisher
Russell Weinberger, A ssociat e Publisher
c ontac t: editor@ edge.org
C opyright © 2 0 0 6 By E dge Foundation, I nc
A ll Rights Res erved.
| T op|
11 of 11
01/27/2009 12:56 PM