I've been thinking a lot about the value of groups and in particular the thought that arises from groups. It's been fashionable of late in education circles to praise the process of groups in the classroom. This is seen clearly in books like Don Tapscott's "Wikinomics" where the assertion is that collaboration is the new wave, and the primary way that product is created in general.
The example that is oft used is that of Wikipedia, the online collaborative encyclopedia. Wikipedia has been the locus of great debate in education because of the apparent inability of educators to decide whether or not the content found in its pages is valid for academic work or not. Wikipedia is most lauded for its ability to allow the collective to construct 'factual' accounts together. Bryant Griffith claims that through Wikipedia "we are offered to share in the construction of community", and that, in turn, this "demands responsibility to ourselves and to the whole." (69) While I subscribe to much of Griffith's thought in regards to social construction and the like, a book by Jaron Lanier has made me take a second look at what Wikipedia does to 'truth'.
In "You are not a Gadget", Lanier claims that we have become a "second-order culture" in thanks to our acceptance of first-order expression as opposed to second-order expression. First-order expression, he asserts, presents itself when "someone presents a whole, a work that integrates its own worldview and aesthetic." (122) Second-order expression, on the other hand, "is made of fragmentary reactions to first-order expressions." (122). So, first-order expression is manifested in original works of art, novel musical compositions and the like. Second-order expressions are manifested in collages, musical mash-ups, and, of course, encyclopedia articles.
The danger that Lanier is proposing here is that second-order expression like Wikipedia limits original and individual thought. The product of a Wikipedia article isn't a coherent exposition of truth, but rather a compiled and superficial truth determined acceptable by what Lanier calls the 'hive mind'.
This entire argument could be undermined by asking whether or not there is in fact any genuine first-order expression. In other words, aren't the media that we applaud often composed of pieces of work that have come before us? Or, is all of our thought some semblance of second-order expression? I don't propose to answer any of these questions any time soon. I do however, think that it is a valuable discussion to have without blindly accepting the merits of media like Wikipedia. In the end, I think the answer will come with an answer to the following question: what do we value more, the aggregate thought of a collective people, or the individual thoughts of an autonomous person?
The example that is oft used is that of Wikipedia, the online collaborative encyclopedia. Wikipedia has been the locus of great debate in education because of the apparent inability of educators to decide whether or not the content found in its pages is valid for academic work or not. Wikipedia is most lauded for its ability to allow the collective to construct 'factual' accounts together. Bryant Griffith claims that through Wikipedia "we are offered to share in the construction of community", and that, in turn, this "demands responsibility to ourselves and to the whole." (69) While I subscribe to much of Griffith's thought in regards to social construction and the like, a book by Jaron Lanier has made me take a second look at what Wikipedia does to 'truth'.
In "You are not a Gadget", Lanier claims that we have become a "second-order culture" in thanks to our acceptance of first-order expression as opposed to second-order expression. First-order expression, he asserts, presents itself when "someone presents a whole, a work that integrates its own worldview and aesthetic." (122) Second-order expression, on the other hand, "is made of fragmentary reactions to first-order expressions." (122). So, first-order expression is manifested in original works of art, novel musical compositions and the like. Second-order expressions are manifested in collages, musical mash-ups, and, of course, encyclopedia articles.
The danger that Lanier is proposing here is that second-order expression like Wikipedia limits original and individual thought. The product of a Wikipedia article isn't a coherent exposition of truth, but rather a compiled and superficial truth determined acceptable by what Lanier calls the 'hive mind'.
This entire argument could be undermined by asking whether or not there is in fact any genuine first-order expression. In other words, aren't the media that we applaud often composed of pieces of work that have come before us? Or, is all of our thought some semblance of second-order expression? I don't propose to answer any of these questions any time soon. I do however, think that it is a valuable discussion to have without blindly accepting the merits of media like Wikipedia. In the end, I think the answer will come with an answer to the following question: what do we value more, the aggregate thought of a collective people, or the individual thoughts of an autonomous person?
RSS Feed
