The Value of Collectives

Posted by Laila Kaz on
Wednesday, April 21st, 2010 at 9:01 am

As we delve into another energy-filled quarter at the MCDM, I am reflecting on a question that came up in multiple classes: How valuable is peer-produced – or “collectively produced” — content in this new age of Internet-based communication?

Many of us in the MCDM have taken on the challenge of reading through Yochai Benkler’s masterwork, The Wealth of Networks, a foundational text for any media program. Benkler makes the case that social production (collaborative content produced by widely distributed individuals, sometimes numbering in the thousands) is more effective and economically efficient than a centralized information production and distribution system that is controlled by a small number of organizations. Benkler backs up his arguments with several examples, such as the highly successful GNU/Linux open-source Web server software; Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia created and edited by thousands of Internet users; and the scientific experiment of NASA Clickworkers in which more than 80,000 public volunteers replaced a handful of scientists and graduate students to mark and classify Mars craters.

One problem with Benkler’s illustrations of these examples is that in extolling their successes, Benkler does not sufficiently examine the potential limitations of these projects. Is GNU/Linux so successful because it has allowed many large (and small) corporations to generate profits by selling their products or services online? And Wikipedia may be losing editors, which could lead to its future decline.

Jaron Lanier, Internet pioneer and scientist, has an opposing perspective on free, collectively produced content. “On one level, the Internet has become anti-intellectual because Web 2.0 collectivism has killed the individual voice,” said Lanier in a recent interview. In his book, You Are Not a Gadget (2010), Lanier wrote that the concept of free content requires “that authors, journalists, musicians and artists are encouraged to treat the fruits of their intellects and imaginations as fragments to be given without pay to the hive mind.”

Lanier’s 2006 essay, “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism,” highlighted the problems of collectively produced content. He also cited Wikipedia as an example for its sometimes-erroneous content. Lanier’s essay prompted a combined response by many media scholars, including Yochai Benkler, Douglas Rushkoff, and Clay Shirky. (Students of the MCDM: If you are not already familiar with these names, you will be soon.)

I agree with both Benkler and Lanier to some extent. I think there is intrinsic value in peer-produced Web content. However, the free and abundant distribution of such content may be at the cost of specialized, authoritative works. Today university presses are struggling, printed monographs (scholarly writing on specialized subjects) are in decline, and long-established newspapers are searching for ways to survive. Yet, some argue that peer-produced content is not a cause but a solution to these problems.

Perhaps it is not a question of choosing one or the other. Both, collectively and individually produced content, will continue to thrive on the Web, adding to the Internet’s value in disseminating information.

Laila Kazmi is a freelance writer and a graduate student in the MCDM program.

Image source: Wikipedia