http://www.yourdonreport.com/index.php/2006/08/19/ongoing-debate-about-jaron-laniers-digital-maoism/ Blogging the impact of computer-related technology trends, and whatever else catches my interest. Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:22:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://www.yourdonreport.com/index.php/2006/08/19/ongoing-debate-about-jaron-laniers-digital-maoism/comment-page-1/#comment-950 The Yourdon Report » Blog Archive » Digg: all the news the people think is fit to print Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:57:50 +0000 http://yourdon.com/personal/blog/2006/08/19/ongoing-debate-about-jaron-laniers-digital-maoism/#comment-950 [...] As for the philosophical question of whether we should depend on the “wisdom of the crowd” to select the top stories for our reading pleasure, or whether it’s better to have a largely invisible group of authoritative editors and publishers, I have a very simple response: the two alternatives need not be mutually exclusive, so each of us can pick the one with which we’re most comfortable. As I discussed in a recent blog posting, people like Jaron Lanier feel strongly that “the hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?” He’s entitled to his opinion, and he’s entitled to get his news from The New York Times, or The New York Daily News, or whatever he feels is an appropriate alternative to the “hive mind.” But many of us don’t have enough time to read the New York Times (or whatever newspaper we consider authoritative) from cover to cover; we don’t have the time to watch Larry King or Charlie Rose (or whatever TV commentator we feel is authoritative) interviewing someone in depth. To a greater or lesser extent, most of us do rely on our grass-roots network of friends, family members, and business colleagues to help us filter the news that’s likely to be most appropriate for our needs. So my recommendation is: choose a top-down or bottom-up approach to suit your needs, but stop trashing the alternative choice. [...] [...] As for the philosophical question of whether we should depend on the “wisdom of the crowd” to select the top stories for our reading pleasure, or whether it’s better to have a largely invisible group of authoritative editors and publishers, I have a very simple response: the two alternatives need not be mutually exclusive, so each of us can pick the one with which we’re most comfortable. As I discussed in a recent blog posting, people like Jaron Lanier feel strongly that “the hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?” He’s entitled to his opinion, and he’s entitled to get his news from The New York Times, or The New York Daily News, or whatever he feels is an appropriate alternative to the “hive mind.” But many of us don’t have enough time to read the New York Times (or whatever newspaper we consider authoritative) from cover to cover; we don’t have the time to watch Larry King or Charlie Rose (or whatever TV commentator we feel is authoritative) interviewing someone in depth. To a greater or lesser extent, most of us do rely on our grass-roots network of friends, family members, and business colleagues to help us filter the news that’s likely to be most appropriate for our needs. So my recommendation is: choose a top-down or bottom-up approach to suit your needs, but stop trashing the alternative choice. [...]

]]>