Listening to Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia speak in Dublin this week, I found myself wondering whether all the content that is being created in collaborative online projects is actually enhancing the store of human knowledge.
Is the wisdom of the crowd really a substitute for the genius of Aristotle, Shakesphere or Chomsky? Is our culture in reality dumbing down when someone like Jimmy Wales suggests that a sure sign that “culture is getting smarter” is the fact that we have transitioned over 30 years from watching TV programmes such as We Love Lucy to the “intellectually challenging” Seinfeld and Lost?
Wikipedia is the world’s biggest reference work. It is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by tens of thousands of volunteers around the world and has a vision to be the “sum of all human knowledge”. There are 3 million articles in the English language and millions of others in nearly every other language, including 9,135 in Irish. Wikipedia is the 5th most popular website in the world. In China, restaurant menus offer “Wikipedia stir-fry” to tourists; a testament to the charitable project’s positive influence on one of the darkest places on our planet, bringing a glimmer of the light of free speech.
Despite Wikipedia’s lofty vision and its undoubted value in collating information on every topic imaginable, I am left a little unsatiated by it. It does serve as an aggregator of the things we know, but it doesn’t actually increase human knowledge. It doesn’t bring new insights to human thought.
Jimmy Wales also took some time to promote Wikia, a new commercial project that allows individuals to create wiki’s on popular topics that might not fit into Wikipedia. Some examples highlighted included a wiki on hacking Canon cameras, a wiki on the topic of homelessness in Tampa Bay, a wiki on sustainable living and a recipes wiki. There is also an all encompasing Answers Wiki, similar to Yahoo! Answers, but where there is only one answer to an inviduals’ question that is written collaboratively.
Wales sees Wikia as a replacement for message boards where “super-geeks” are no longer just talking to each other, but are “sharing insights” with a wider audience – “the super geeks are writing stuff that is interesting to the rest of us.” It seems that the most popular topics on Wikia however are on popular “intellectually challenging” US TV shows and are used by thousands of people to get a better understanding of the storylines and plots.
There is no doubt that “consumer media is becoming dominant” as Wales points out. He cites the example of a Google search for “muppet” where the top three links returned are all consumer generated content with the official page of the Muppets often not making it onto the first page of Google search results.
The quality of collaborative writing has been maintained, according to Wales, because there is only a “very tiny number of malicious people in the world.” However he does suggest that there are lots of “idiots” out there who write “stupid things” and that this is evidenced on Wikipedia by the increasing volume of reversions that are taking place there. A reversion occurs when a person edits an article on Wikipedia and that entry is subsequently erased and the article reverted to the previous version by a senior editor. Apparently this occurs to 80% of the edits made by newcomers to Wikipedia.
The downsides of collaborative writing and crowd-sourcing are self-evident, but this shouldn’t take from the intrinsic benefits; in connecting people with common interests, in greater openness and sharing of knowledge and in the potential for breaking down barriers between opposing viewpoints.
It also taps into the fundamental enjoyment we get from expressing ourselves. When Wales tried to offer money to some super-geeks to write content for him, he was met with the response (paraphrased) – “if you give me money you’re going to tell me how to do it and when to do it. Just tell me what you want me to write. I’m that interested in what I do and you couldn’t pay me enough to do it.”
However, can collaborative online projects actually bring forth new insights into existing conundrums or promote advances in human understanding?
Insight is different to knowledge…
Knowledge happens in your head,
insight happens in your being.
Knowledge comes from others and
it accumulates, insight is your own
and it transforms you.
Knowledge makes you worldly but it
weighs you down, insight makes you
wise and sets you free. Knowledge is
old and stale, insight is fresh and in
the moment. Knowledge needs up-
dating, insight is timeless.
In recent discussions here we’ve been trying to identify a model for an online collaborative network that could successfully bring innovators together with a view to helping to take breakthroughs, insights and innovative solutions out to the marketplace. One of the fears expressed by some innovators is the fear that others will steal ideas, and so they are proposing that everyone sign NDAs before being allowed to participate in any collaborative network.
Is seems that the knowledge economy and the collaborative nature of what we do online are not well aligned. But sure we knew that already.