The debate between Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, and Andrew Keen, also an entrepreneur, was full of rhetorical discussion. Wales essentially believes that everyone should have access to the knowledge of the world, while Keen feels the use of 'free' knowledge "undermines the value of intellectual labor."
The core conflict in the debate resides in the fundamental premises and philosophies of each man. According to Wikipedia (haha), Wale's life is based on the philosophy of Objectivism first proposed by writer Ayn Rand. This states that the individual is paramount, and that individual rights should never be sacrificed for the "greatest good". Reward should never be based on need, but rather the value one produces.
According to the Objectivist, things like welfare destroy the rights of the individual. When the value produced by the labor of a man is handed over to someone who 'needs' it more, then the livelihood of the honest man based on independence, integrity, and pride is squandered away. When honest labor is not rewarded with equal value, where is the incentive for man to aspire to create?
These ideals are pretty extreme, but do have value and should be noted. I do not think, however, that the creation of Wikipedia is going to stop intelligent people from going to college, getting their phd's, and leading productive lives. Keen seems to think so, but he only sees in black and white.
I only bring this up because despite the apparent divide between Wales and Keen throughout the debate, I think they have a lot in common.
According to Keen, Wikipedia undermines the value of intellectual labor, and he has a problem with contributors not being paid. He says "it's not enough to be rewarded in virtue." This clearly parallels the Objectivism philosophy.
Wales is an optimist, Keen a pessimist. Wales believes every man has the right to use the knowledge of the world to shape their lives for the better. Keen thinks the common man will abuse this access to a vast store of knowledge.
I agree with them both here. Keen is an extremely intelligent man, and I agree with many of his points, but he is one stubborn ass. I do think everyone should have access to human knowledge; we're all in this life together, but with great power comes great responsibility.
That is where I agree with Keen. He, and I, fear that people who lack the skepticism that comes with a good education are unable to comprehend the importance of information or determine what may need further verification. Wikipedia is a great first step in research, but we know it should never be the final step. An uneducated or lazy person may not know that.
Both men made valid points supported by valid logic, so who is right? I think neither is completely right or completely wrong. I think this whole debate is part of a much larger question.
Do you trust in the nature of people to use the unprecedented database that is Wikipedia, or the power of the Internet in general, in the right way and for the right reasons? Can we have access to virtually unlimited knowledge and still view the intellectual labor and creativity of man with the utmost importance?
I don't agree with Keen at all. I think that a free database like Wikipedia is a great thing. Sure, contributors don't get paid, but they don't contribute thinking they're going to get paid, so I don't know what the problem is there. As for the "lazy people", I don't think there's much harm at all in them treating Wikipedia as the "final step". The fact that they are trying to gain any knowledge at all is good, and I doubt they would have shelled out the money for an encyclopedia in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI agree with James. There is no doubt that information has been compiled by numerous people on wikipedia but they do have people revising it that work for wikipedia. It IS a great source for common knowledge and casual trivia, however,as far as an actual source for research and cold hard information, until every line of wikipedia is checked out and verified.
ReplyDelete