Reading the Wisdom of Crowds I got to believe that groups are substantially more intelligent than the smartest people within them. That crowd allegedly is a force capable of accumulating a great deal of experiences and knowledge, becoming them a reliable source of information. However, the English historian Thomas Carlyle put it succinctly:”I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance”. I tend to think he is right.
Wikipedia has become a necessary means of consultation for almost everybody, and unfortunately a dangerous necessity for those who scarcely have judgment and discernment to comprehend life. When I was a high-school student I used to read academic and scientific books, many of which are now disappearing slowly. They provided me knowledge base on scientific explorations which then were postulated and edited by cognitive authorities. Each assignment demanded much more dedication. Despite it was more complex to find information by the time, my generation could rely on it and obtain a higher education to face the world. It was that extra effort looking information up what made us more studios and disciplined. I am not smarter than others, but when I speak with an adolescent for a while, I can readily evidence some differences between my generation and theirs.
Nowadays crowds mark tendencies more easily but they will never understand how they did it. They simply follow what a stream says and that is ignorance. The stream is largely fed by amateurs. Most people no longer think and investigate, allowing other people, who have no high degree of intelligence and any academic preparation, build the base of today’s knowledge. Wikipedia, Google and other technologies worsen the situation by stimulating laziness among those who hate to go deeper. This is the copy-page culture thanks to technology. Everything is too easy and our brains now need crutch to think. On the other hand, this is also a propitious context for those who always dreamed about being editors, journalists or erudite as they are mere amateurs playing a dangerous game. I think crowds will never be wise, much less when vandalism erode the real meaning even more.
However, in terms of integration, cooperation, tolerance and respect, Wikipedia seems to be a successful episode in a world where people are growing more isolated. On the other side, Wikipedia and Google concentrate an astronomical amount of data necessary enough to know what the market wants and so anticipate the future. This is good for our benefit. Lamentably that data is not product of our intelligence but the huge server which does a truly intelligent work by taking advantage of our desires and frustrations. Wikipedia joins coordination and cooperation, but cognition demands much more debate in order to complete the James Surowiecki’s thesis.
I think each person should contribute separately according to his degree of specialization; by creating clusters in a huge variety of fields Wikipedia would be more accurate. Afterward each work made for each cluster should be debated and revised by experts. That is one way we approach an ecosystem of wisdom. Regarding vandalism I am quite negative; there will always be people interested in sabotage. Their frequent actions affect the Wikipedia’s credibility and counteract them seem to be a difficult task.
No comments yet
Comments feed for this article