Chapter 7: Encyclopedic Anxiety

Over time, the average quality of Wikipedia articles rises, but Wikipedians’ standards rise more quickly. — OpenToppedBus’s First Law


The higher the standards that Wikipedia aims for, the more that Wikipedia will appear sub-standard to the outside world. — OpenToppedBus’s Corollary

ウィキペディアが基準をたかくとろうとすればするほど、外部世界からはウィキペディアが基準をしたまわってみえるようになる。 —OpenToppedBusの系

Wikipedia, and the collaborative way in which it is produced, is at the center of a heated debate. Much as reference works might inspire passionate dedication in their contributors, they also, seemingly, can inspire passionate disparagement. In 2004 Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association, wrote an op-ed criticizing Google and its book-scanning project; he was surprised by the negative online response to his piece, but this only prompted him to redouble his attack a few years later. In 2007 he focused on blogs and Wikipedia, decrying the effects of the “digital tsunami” on learning. In a blog essay entitled “Jabberwiki” Gorman lauded Sanger’s abandonment of Wikipedia for the more expert-friendly Citizendium and criticized those who continue to contribute to, or even use, Wikipedia:

ウィキペディア、およびそれを製作する共同作業的なやりかたは、白熱する論争の中心にある。投稿者から情熱的な献身をひきだすことがあるのとおなじくらい、情熱的な非難をもひきだすことがレファレンス資料にはあるようだ。アメリカ図書館協会元会長マイケル・ゴーマンは2004年、グーグルとその書籍スキャンのプロジェクトを批判するコラムを書いた。オンラインでその論への否定的反応があったことにゴーマンは驚いたものの、それを受けて数年後に倍返しで攻撃するのみだった。2007年彼はブログとウィキペディアに焦点をあて、「ディジタルの津波」が学習にあたえる効果に慨嘆した。「ジャバウィキ」(ルイス・キャロルの造語「ジャバウォッキ」のパロディ)と題してブログに投稿した文章でゴーマンはサンガーがウィキペディアを捨て専門家をとりこみやすい Citizendium に向かったことを賞賛し、ウィキペディアに投稿しつづける人あるいは使いつづける人さえをもこう批判した。

Despite Sanger’s apostasy from the central tenet of the Wikipedia faith and his establishment of a resource based on expertise, the remaining faithful continue to add to, and the intellectually lazy to use, the fundamentally flawed resource, much to the chagrin of many professors and schoolteachers. Many professors have forbidden its use in papers. Even most of the terminally trendy plead with their students to use other resources…. A few endorse Wikipedia heartily. This mystifies me. Education is not a matter of popularity or of convenience—it is a matter of learning, of knowledge gained the hard way, and of respect for the human record. A professor who encourages the use of Wikipedia is the intellectual equivalent of a dietician who recommends a steady diet of Big Macs with everything.1

サンガーがウィキペディアの中心的教義を apostasy (未訳)し専門知識にもとづく資料を創設したにもかかわらず、のこった忠実なものたちがこの根本的に欠陥のある資料に加筆を続け、知的に怠惰なものたちがそれを使いつづけ、多くの教授や教師を慨嘆させている。極端に流行好きなものたちさえも、生徒にほかの資料を使うようすすめている……。少数が熱心にウィキペディアを賞賛する。私には理解しがたい。教育は人気や便利さの問題ではない。学習の問題であり、苦心して獲得する知識の問題であり、人類の記録への敬意の問題である。ウィキペディアの利用を奨励する教授はビッグマックの継続摂取をすすめる栄養士の知識人版だ。1

While he may be more strident than others, Gorman is not alone. As seen in the epigraph that begins this chapter, Wikipedians themselves are aware of the vertigo resulting from increasing quality being outpaced by expectations. What was once thought to be an adequate article, even when expanded and improved, might be marked as a stub today. As noted in the “corollary,” this vertigo is further exaggerated in the “outside world’s” view of Wikipedia progress.2


In this chapter I review some of the criticism Wikipedia faces related to the themes of collaborative practice, universal vision, encyclopedic impulse, and technological inspiration. However, I frame contemporary criticism by way of a historical argument: Wikipedia, like other reference works before it, has triggered larger social anxieties about technological and social change. This prompts the question of whether Wikipedia is representative of new forms of content production that are changing the role of the individual, the character of cultural products, and the authority and viability of established cultural institutions. Each element of this concern also prompts arguments about whether such changes are genuine or hype and, if genuine, positive or negative. But before I engage these specific arguments, it is worthwhile to understand why reference works prompt such arguments.


The Normativeness of the Reference Work


Many reference controversies revolve around the extent to which reference works are seen as normative, that is, in some way condoning their subject and sources. For example, shouldn’t a national dictionary shun popular slang or words borrowed from other languages?


When the French Academy commenced compiling a national dictionary in the seventeenth century, it was with the sense that the language had reached perfection and should therefore be authoritatively “fixed,” as if set in stone. However, the utilitarian value of a vernacular dictionary could not be denied: Furetiére’s competing dictionary contained words not approved of by the scholars and it sold well in the black market.3 Samuel Johnson also thought he might be able to preserve the purity of English, despite warnings that the French dictionary took forty years to complete.4 However, once the difficult task of compiling a dictionary was complete, he apologized in its preface to those “who have been persuaded to think well of my design, [and] require that it should fix our language”; this pretense with which he had “flattered” himself was in fact an “expectation which neither reason nor experience could justify” as no lexicographer can secure his language “from corruption and decay” and “clear the world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation.”5


While there is still some debate over the extent to which dictionaries should be “prescriptive”,6 few, beside the French Academy, would purposely exclude commonly used words out of a desire to withhold implicit approbation. However, encyclopedists have been more willing to associate the scope of their subject, and its treatment, with a larger social program. One reason for this difference between dictionaries and encyclopedias might simply be space. It is within the realm of a lexicographer to include every word of interest, even if it requires twenty volumes in the case of the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), or a magnifying lens in the case of its compact edition. Encyclopedias, if they are to fit on one or two shelves of a library stack, must limit their scope. This then requires judgment about what to include in a given work, which entails asking what is essential, worthwhile, and appropriate to know. On the axis of material constraints then, Wikipedia is situated much more like paper dictionaries than encyclopedias given its near-infinite number of pages. (Granted, Wikipedians still argue about inclusionism versus deletionism,7 but even a deletionist’s scope is far more permissive than even the largest print encyclopedia.)


Another probable reason reference works are thought to be normative is that they were marketed as resources for children. Information historian Foster Stockwell concludes, “The implication was that any parent who failed to buy an encyclopedia when a youngster was depriving a child of the opportunity of doing well in school, and, ultimately, in life.” Between 1940 and 1970 some sales techniques were so aggressive as to be outlawed and various encyclopedias were fined for violating Federal Trade Commission orders. Yet, despite the scholarly intentions of their compilers, the marketing departments of reference work publishers convincingly made their pitch and the public came to see encyclopedias as an authoritative source for instruction, such that, “when children go to their parents for help they will, as often as not, be directed to the encyclopedia shelf.”8 This issue is reflected today in arguments about Wikipedia’s age appropriateness: is it “child safe”? The English-language Wikipedia has generally resisted content discrimination on the basis of anything other than informative content, though how to deal with potentially offensive subjects is often discussed (e.g., pedophilia and hate speech). The Wikimedia Foundation addresses concerns about age appropriateness partly through the provision of a Simple English Wikipedia for use by children.9

レファレンス資料は規範的であるべきだと考えられていたもうひとつの理由としてありうるのは、こどものための資料だとして売り込まれていたことだ。情報歴史学者フォスター・ストックウェルは「百科事典を買えなかった親はこどもが学校ひいては人生で成功する機会をうばっているという含意があった」 (ERRATA 原文 when a youngster はおそらく for the youngster の誤り。GFC書籍版p.139では for ) と結論づけている。1940年から1970年のあいだ、一部の売り込み手段は攻撃的になり違法化すらされ、連邦通商委員会の命令に違反したとしてさまざまな百科事典に罰金が課された。編纂者に学術的意図があったにもかかわらず、それでもレファレンス資料出版社の営業部門は売り込み文句で説得し、大衆は権威ある説明の源として百科事典をみるようになり、「こどもが親にたすけをもとめていくと、少なからぬ場合に百科事典の書棚にみちびかれた」。この問題は現在ウィキペディアの対象年齢についての議論に反映されている。ウィキペディアは「こどもが見るのに安全」か? 刺激的な可能性がある主題(小児性愛とヘイトスピーチなど)をどうあつかうかはしばしば議論されたが、英語版ウィキペディアは報知的であること以外のいかなる基準による内容の差別におおむね抵抗してきた。ウィキメディア財団はシンプル・イングリッシュ版ウィキペディアをこども向けに提供することにより、対象年齢についての懸念に部分的に対応した9

Other wiki-based projects face a similar issue. The very handy wikiHow provides accessible information on how to do various tasks yourself; yet, just because a page describes how to do something, does that mean one should do it? (An article on wikiHow about how to do something compared to an article on Wikipedia about something seems to have a greater force.) wikiHow makes no claim that every article is an endorsement, but it also avoids content that would be considered “inappropriate for our family audience,”10 a threshold the larger Wikipedia does not accommodate. Despite these intentions, and any disclaimers, some people nonetheless see Wikipedia as representative and permissive of changes not to their liking. In the history of reference work production, Wikipedia is not alone.

ウィキによる他のプロジェクトも同様の問題に直面している。自分でさまざまな作業をするための情報を提供する wikiHow は大変便利だが、なにかのやり方を記述したページがあるからといって、それをすべきだということを意味するか?(何かのやり方についての wikiHow の記事は何かについてのウィキペディア項目よりも強い力があるように見える。) wikiHow はすべての記事が推奨だという主張をしていないが、「家族の読者に不適切」だと考えられるコンテンツを避けてはいる10。これはより大きなウィキペディアにはない閾値だ。こういった意図や免責事項があるにもかかわらず、自分たちの好みにあわない変化をウィキペディアが代表し許容しているとみなす。レファレンス資料製作の歴史でそれはウィキペディアだけではない。

This question of an implied morality in a reference work is present in Herbert Morton’s fascinating The Story of Webster’s Third: Philip Gove’s Controversial Dictionary and Its Critics.11 Perhaps the primary reason for the controversy associated with this dictionary was that it appeared at a time of social tumult. A simplistic rendering of the 1960s was that progressives were seeking to shake up that which conservatives held dear. Yet, those working on the Third were not a band of revolutionaries. For example, Gove made a number of editorial decisions so as to improve the dictionary. And while lexicographers might professionally differ with some of his choices, such as the difficult pronunciation guide or the sometimes awkward technique of writing the definition as a single sentence, these were lexicographic decisions. It was the social context that largely defined the tenor of the controversy.

レファレンス資料のなかの倫理的含意の問題はハーバート・モートンの魅力的な著作『The Story of Webster’s Third: Philip Gove’s Controversial Dictionary and Its Critics』にあらわれている11。この辞書にまつわる論争の一番の理由はもしかするとそれが社会的混乱の時期に刊行されたことかもしれない。保守派が大切にするものを進歩派がゆるがそうとしていたというのが1960年代の単純化した描写だ。とはいえ、第3版の仕事をしたのは革命家のあつまりではない。たとえば、ゴーヴは辞書を改善するにあたって編集上の多くの決定をした。たとえば難解な発音ガイドや定義を1文で書くというぎこちなくなりがちな技術などについて辞書編纂者の意見は彼の決定の一部と違っていたかもしれないが、これらは辞書編纂上の決定だった。論争の通底音を主になしたのは社会的文脈だった。

My reading of Morton, and one I think is relevant to Wikipedia as well, is that critics were alarmed at the social change occurring around them and attacked Webster’s Third as an exemplar and proxy. For example, Wilson Follet, an authority on word usage, published an article in the Atlantic Monthly entitled “Sabotage in Springfield” wherein he described the Third as “a scandal and disaster,” which “plumes itself on its faults and parades assiduously cultivated sins as virtues.”12 Scholar Jacques Barzun thought it extraordinary, and worth bragging about, that for the first time in his experience the editorial board of the distinguished American Scholar was able to unanimously condemn a work and know where each board member “stood on the issue that the work presented to the public,” even though “none of those present had given the new dictionary more than a casual glance.”13 In fact, an exhortation I encountered as a schoolboy of “ain’t ain’t a word” was a prominent topic of national debate after the Third’s publication.14 Yet, as Morton details, while some of these criticisms resulted from Merriam’s ill-considered press materials proclaiming it to be “truth,” “unquestionable fact,” and the “supreme authority,” much of the reaction was also predicated on ignorance and a reaction against “the so-called permissiveness of American culture in the 1960s.”15 The extent to which Wikipedia makes claims of veracity or greatness is part of the debate I discuss below.

私のモートンの解釈では、またウィキペディアにとって重要と思われることとしては、周囲でおこっている社会変化に批評家が脅威を感じ、その代表や代理としてウェブスター第3版を攻撃したということだ。たとえば、語の用法についての権威であるウィルソン・フォレットはAtlantic Monthly誌に「Sabotage in Springfield」という題の記事を発表し、第3版を「スキャンダルと大失敗」であり「失敗を誇り丹念につくられた罪業を善としてみせびらかす」ものだとした12。学者 Jaques Barzun は、権威ある American Scholar 誌の編集委員会が彼の経験上はじめて満場一致である作品を糾弾することができ、「出席したどの委員もこの新辞書に簡単に目を通すことしかできなかった」ながらも各委員が「この作品が大衆にもたらした問題についての自分の立場」を理解できたことは類例がなく誇るに値すると述べた13。「ain’t ain’t a word」(「ain’t は単語じゃない」)の少年として私が遭遇したような激励は実際、『第三版』刊行後の全国的論争の有名な対象だった14。とはいえ、モートンが詳述するようにメリアムの準備不足な発表資料でこの辞書が「真実」、「疑いようのない事実」、「究極の権威」とされていたことから起こった批判もあったが、多くの反応は「1960年代アメリカ文化の寛容性といわれるもの」への反発と無知からも予測された15。ウィキペディアが真実性や偉大さをどの程度主張するかは以降で論じる論争の一部である。

Bias: Progressive and Conservative


In 2008 the front page of Conservapedia, an ideological competitor of Wikipedia, recommended its “article of the year” to readers so they might “Discover what Wikipedia, the public school systems, and the liberal media don’t want you to know about atheism”.16 This reference to the “Atheism” article clearly indicates Conservapedia’s intention of opposing a perceived liberal and materialistic bias in Wikipedia. Indeed, its “Examples of Bias in Wikipedia” article lists 160 instances.17 And Conservapedia is but one of the first of many ideological user-generated encyclopedias likely to be started — though many soon fall into disuse. (The facetious headline of an article in the Register recommends that if you find “Conservapedia too pinko? Try Metapedia.”18 Metapedia’s stated purpose is to serve as an encyclopedia “for pro-European activists,”19 recalling the much discussed “neo-Nazi” attack/fork of Wikipedia.) Because reference works are popular, used by children, and understood as representing what is known, we should not be surprised to see these works at the center of larger social controversies.

2008年、ウィキペディアのイデオロギー的競合にあたる Conservapedia はトップページで「今年の項目」が読者にむけて推薦した。「ウィキペディア、公的学校システム、リベラルのメディアが無神論について何を知られまいとしているかを伝える」ためである16。この「無神論」の言及はあきらかに、ウィキペディアにあるリベラルで物質主義的な偏りに Conservapedia が反対する意図をしめしたものだ。実際「ウィキペディアの偏りの例」の項目には実例が160ある17。Conservapedia は、同様にたちあげられたイデオロギー的なユーザー生成型百科事典多数のうちのひとつにすぎない(とはいえ多くはすぐに使用されなくなったが)。(Register が「Conservapediaでは左翼すぎる?Metapediaをどうぞ」とおどけた題の記事18で推薦したMetapediaの公式の目的は「ヨーロッパ支持派活動家のための」百科事典として機能することだった19。) レファレンス資料は人気があり、子どもが使うものであり、何が既知かをあらわしたものと理解されているのだから、こうした資料がよりおおきな社会的論争のまとになることはおどろくにあたらない。

And because of visionaries like Otlet and Wells one might mistakenly infer that reference works are necessarily progressive. While this has often been the case, particularly since the Enlightenment, it need not be so. In the history of reference works one is more likely to find opposing forces, cycles of predominance, and surprises. As an example of the diversity of purpose for reference works, historian Tom McArthur claims the Greeks wanted to know everything so as to think better, the Romans to act better, and the Christians so as to glorify God and redeem their sins.20 As evidence of the latter Johann Zedler wrote in his eighteenth-century encyclopedia, the Universal-Lexicon: “the purpose of the study of science … is nothing more nor less than to combat atheism, and to prove the divine nature of things.”21 In Conservapedia’s “Atheism” article of the year, we see the cycle has completed a turn.

オトレやウェルズなどのようなヴィジョナリーがいたことにより、レファレンス資料は必然的に進歩派であると早合点してしまう人がいるかもしれない。特に啓蒙時代以降はしばしばそうだったとはいえ、かならずしもそうではない。レファレンス資料の歴史のなかにはむしろ諸力の対立、周期的な支配、驚きがみあたる。レファレンス資料の目的の多様性の例として、ギリシャ人があらゆる知識をもとめたのはよりよく思考するためであり、ローマ人の場合はよりよく行動するためであり、キリスト教徒の場合は神をたたえ自らの罪をあがなうためだったと歴史家トム・マッカーサーは主張する20。後者の証拠として18世紀のヨハン・ツェドラーの百科事典 Universal-Lexicon で「科学研究の目的は……無神論にたちむかい、事物の神的本質を証明すること以外のなにものでもない」と書いた21。Conservapediaの今年の項目「無神論」で周期が一周したことがみてとれる。

Of course, it is the French Encyclopédie with which progressivism is famously associated. In its “Encyclopedia” article, Diderot wrote that a good encyclopedia ought to have “the power to change men’s common way of thinking.”22 Such a notion was considered dangerous by the French nobility, Pope Clement XIII, and an editor of Britannica, a clergyman by the name of George Gleig. In the dedication of the 1800 Britannica supplement, Gleig wrote to his monarch: “The French Encyclopédie has been accused, and justly accused, of having disseminated far and wide the seeds of anarchy and atheism. If the Encyclopædia Britannica shall in any degree counteract the tendency of that pestiferous work, even these two volumes will not be wholly unworthy of Your Majesty’s attention.”23 Wikipedia is often thought to be anarchic as well, or at least to be an experiment in it — and the recurrent motif of concern about atheism is remarkable. However, ironically, Britannica’s image as a conservative stalwart is contradicted by one of its more recent editors, Charles Van Doren; Jimmy Wales is fond of citing the former editor at Britannica as saying that “because the world is radically new, the ideal encyclopedia should be radical, too. It should stop being safe — in politics, and philosophy, and science.”24 The fact that Van Doren worked at Britannica after resigning from Columbia University because of his participation in the television quiz show scandals of the 1950s is a further irony given the present arguments about new media and the authority of knowledge production.25

もちろん進歩主義との関連が有名なのはフランスの『百科全書』だ。そのなかの「百科事典」の項目でよい百科事典は「人の通常の考え方を変える力」をもつべきだとディドロは書いた22。こうした考えをフランスの貴族、ローマ教皇クレメンス13世、ブリタニカの編集者であり司祭であったジョージ・グレイグは危険視した。1880年版ブリタニカの補遺への献辞でグレイグは英国君主にこうささげた。「フランスの『百科全書』には、無政府主義と無神論の種をひろく普及させてしまったとの正当な批判があります。あの忌しい書の傾向にブリタニカ百科事典がいくらかでも対抗できるとすれば、この2冊も陛下におめどおしいただくのにまったく値しないともかぎらないでしょう」23。ウィキペディアも無政府主義的、すくなくともその実験だと考えられることがしばしばあり、無神論についての懸念というテーマが繰り返されるのは特筆にあたいする。しかし皮肉なことに、断固とした保守派というブリタニカのイメージはより最近の編集者のひとり、チャールズ・ヴァン・ドレンによって否定された。ジミー・ウェールズはこの元ブリタニカ編集者のこの言葉をこのんで引用した。「世界は急進的にあたらしいから、理想的な百科事典も急進的であるべだ。政治学、哲学、科学において、安全であることをやめるべきだ」 24。1950年代のテレビのクイズ番組でのスキャンダルに参加したことによりコロンビア大学を辞任したヴァン・ドレンがブリタニカに携わったという事実は、新しいメディアと知識生産の権威とに関する原行の議論25をふまえればさらに皮肉である。

Accusations of bias are surprising in their specificity and passion, and prior to Wikipedia, Britannica received the brunt of attention. Herman Kogan’s The Great EB: The Story of the Encyclopædia Britannica addresses many accusations of bias, particularly by and between Protestants, Catholics, Britons, Americans, and Soviets.26 Harvey Einbinder’s The Myth of the Britannica is actually an extensive criticism itself though he also describes Christian Scientist and Jehovah’s Witness concerns in addition to Catholic controversies.27 Over a century ago Thaddeus Oglesby collected criticisms he had raised against Britannica in a book entitled: Some Truths of History: A Vindication of the South against the Encyclopædia Britannica and Other Maligners.28 (However, contrary to Oglesby’s opinion, Gillian Thomas notes that the Britannica seems overly favorable to the South given its portrayal of lynching as a form of controlling “disorderly Negro politicians” by “protective societies of whites.”29) More recently, Michel McCarthy wrote of Britannica’s complaint department including their receipt of an obscenity-filled letter from a Texas man accusing Britannica of bias against the Ostrogoths.30

偏りについての批判は驚くど具体的で情熱的だ。ウィキペディア以前にはブリタニカが注目の打撃を受けた。ハーマン・コーガンの「The Great EB: The Story of the Encyclopædia Britannica」は偏り、特にプロテスタントとカトリック、イギリス人とアメリカ人とソビエト人あいだの偏りについての批判を多く論じている26。Harvey Einbinderの「The Myth of the Britannica」はそれ自体が批判でもあるが、カトリックの論争にくわえクリスチャン・サイエンスとエホバの証人の問題を記述している27。1世紀以上前に Thaddeus Oglesby はブリタニカに対して行われた批判をあつめ「Some Truths of History: A Vindication of the South against the Encyclopædia Britannica and Other Maligners」という本にした28(ただし、「無法なネグロ派政治家」を制御する方法の一種として私刑を描写したことを踏まえると、Oglesby の意見に反してブリタニカは南部について好意的すぎると Gillian Thomas は指摘した29)。より最近には、MIchel McCarthy がブリタニカの苦情処理部門について書き、ブリタニカは東ゴート族に対する偏見をもっていると批判するテキサスの男性から罵倒語であふれた手紙をうけとったことなどを収録した30

But perhaps the best-known encyclopedia critic is Joseph McCabe; around 1950 he began documenting a perceived Catholic bias in many popular encyclopedias. McCabe’s dedication and focus has the same obsessive character of earlier reference work compilers, present-day Wikipedians, and even some of its critics. He wrote that this new preoccupation resulted from an overseas argument about the Pope’s employment of castrati. He discovered that Britannica’s once accurate “Eunuchs” article “had been scandalously mutilated, the facts about church choirs suppressed, and the reader given an entirely false impression.” Upon learning that the Westminster Catholic Federation boasted of their efforts to “eliminate matter which was objectionable from a Catholic point of view and to insert what was accurate and unbiased,” McCabe set out to identify what had been altered in his publication The Lies and Fallacies of the Encyclopædia Britannica: How Powerful and Shameless Clerical Forces Castrated a Famous Work of Reference.31 He followed this work a few years later with The Columbia Encyclopedia’s Crimes against the Truth: Another Analysis of Potential Catholic Bias in Encyclopedia. Here he tracked changes in various editions over the topics of sexuality, atheists, the forgery of the Donation of Constantine (transferring power from the Roman Emperor to the papacy), and Columbia’s silence on “Catholic persecution, death sentence for heresy, mental reservation, apostates, vilification marriages, torture, Feast of Fools, the Syllabus, etc.”32 No doubt, he would have loved to have a tool like WikiScanner.33 This tool, which can help identify the origins of some “anonymous” edits, was widely covered in the press in August 2007 when it was revealed that computers associated with the Diebold electronic voting machine company, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Vatican, Scientology members, and others had removed embarrassing information from their respective articles.

しかしおそらくもっともよく知られた百科事典批判者は Joseph McCabe だろう。1950年ごろに彼は多数の人気ある百科事典のなかにあると考えられるカトリックへの偏りを記録しはじめた。McCabe の熱意と集中は以前のレファレンス資料編纂者、今日のウィキペディアン、一部のウィキペディア批判者の偏執的性格と一致している。このあたらしい先入観はカストラーティ(去勢された歌い手)を教皇が使ったことについての海の向こうでの論争に端を発していると彼は述べた。ブリタニカの「宦官」の項目はかつては正確だったが「はずかしいほどずたずたにされ、教会合唱団についての事実が隠蔽され、まったく誤った印象を読者にあたえた」。ウェストミンスター・カトリック連合が「カトリックの観点でいかがわしい点を除去し正確で偏りのないものを挿入する」と吹聴ことを知ると、 McCabe は書き換えられ点をは同定し著書『The Lies and Fallacies of the Encyclopædia Britannica: How Powerful and Shameless Clerical Forces Castrated a Famous Work of Reference』31にまとめることにした。この数年後『The Columbia Encyclopedia’s Crimes against the Truth: Another Analysis of Potential Catholic Bias in Encyclopedia』という次作を出した。性、無神論、コンスタンティヌスの寄進状(ローマ皇帝から教皇への権力の移譲)などの話題に関する変更、「カトリックによる迫害、異端者の死刑、心的留保、背教者、vilification marriages(未訳)、拷問、Feast of Fools(未訳)、誤謬表など」についてのコロンビアの沈黙をここで彼はたどった32。WikiScanner 33のようなツールがあればきっと気にいっただろう。一部の「匿名」編集の送信元を同定する手掛かりを提供するこのツールは、2007年8月に広く報じられた。Diebold という電子投票機の会社、民主党連邦議会選挙運動委員会、ヴァティカン、サイエントロジー会員などに結びつくコンピュータがそれぞれに対応する項目から恥ずかしい情報を消したことが明らかになったのだ。

Yet, as in any history, we must be careful not to divide the field into extremes, in this case between conservative and progressive poles. For example, while an association with the Encyclopédie was certainly dangerous, Robert Darnton notes that it was France’s sympathetic director of the library, and chief censor, who saved the Encyclopédie several times. Indeed, Malesherbes warned Diderot that his papers were about to be seized by the police but that they could be deposited and saved with him after issuing the very order for their confiscation.34 Or, in another anecdote, one can see that even the French Royals had a complicated relationship with the censored work, wishing they had the reference on hand during a dinner party discussion about the composition of gunpowder and the construction of silk stockings.35


And as a final methodological note, the interpretation of past events is often colored by our own present. Consider the question, what did those in power fear from the Encyclopédie? Foster Stockwell clearly labels the focus on craftsmanship as a progressive force: Diderot “exploded the religious and social myths that kept people in a condition of servitude.” He was also the first to take craftsmanship seriously and by doing so “helped set in motion the downfall of the royal family and the rigid class system,” with the result that “every person became the equal of every other”.36 Yet another scholar, Cynthia Koepp, renders the import quite differently. Diderot, on behalf of the “dominant, elite culture” expropriated the techniques of the artisan whose “formally unique talents, knowledge, and abilities became dispensable.”37

最後に方法論的な点としてあげておくと、過去のできごとの解釈は我々自身の現在によって色付けされることが多い。『百科全書』のなにを権力者はこわがっていたのかという疑問をかんがえてみよう。工芸技術に焦点をあてていたことを進歩派を推進する印であるとして、フォスター・ストックウェルはこう明言する。ディドロは「人々を隷属させつづけていた宗教的・社会的神話を爆破」した。「工芸技術を真剣にとりあつかった初めての人」でもあり、そのことにより「王族と厳格な階級制度が崩壊しだすのを助け」、その結果として「あらゆる人がたがいに平等になった」36。別の学者 Cynthia Koepp はその意味付けをまったく異なる形でこう描写する。ディドロは「支配層のエリート主義の文化」を代表しており、「かつては固有のものだった才能、知識、能力を供給可能なものにする」37ことで職人の技術を収奪した。

The difference between these two authors shows that the degree to which reference works are viewed as conservative or progressive is not only dependent on their historical context, but also on interpretations of that history in the present: Stockwell sees the Encyclopédie as a democratizing force whereas Koepp sees it as a form of expropriation. (It could have been neither or both.) Consequently, the task is not so much to determine whether a particular reference work was objectively and definitively conservative or progressive, but rather whether it was received as such and what that tells us of the larger social context. As Einbinder writes in the introduction to his critique, “since an encyclopedia is a mirror of contemporary learning, it offers a valuable opportunity to examine prevailing attitudes and beliefs in a variety of fields.”38 Similarly, for contemporary debate, Clay Shirky, a theorist of social software, observes: “Arguments about whether new forms of sharing or collaboration are, on balance, good or bad reveal more about the speaker than the subject.”39

以上2人のあいだの差はレファレンス資料がどの程度進歩派あるいは保守派とうけとられるかは歴史的文脈によるだけでなくその歴史が現在どう解釈されるかにもよるということを示している。Stockwell は『百科全書』を民主化の力とみなしたが Koepp は収奪の力とみなした(そしてそれはどちらでもないかもしれないし両方かもしれない)。したがって、すべきことは特定のレファレンス資料が客観的かつ決定的に保守派なのか進歩派なのかを決めることではなく、そのようにうけとられたかどうか、またよりおおきな社会的文脈についてそのことが何をかたるかだ。Einbinder が評論の冒頭に書いたように、「百科事典は現代の教育の鏡であるから、さまざまな分野でどのような態度や信念が主流なのかを検証する貴重な機会をあたえてくれる」38。社会的ソフトウェアの理論家クレイ・シャーキーが現代の論争でこれと似たことを観察している。「新しい形式の共有や共同作業が得失を鑑みてよいものかわるいものかの議論は、主題よりも論者の姿をあきらかにしてくれる。」39

Criticisms of Wikipedia and “Web 2.0”


Not surprisingly, though worth a chuckle nonetheless, an informative resource for this chapter is Wikipedia’s “Criticism of Wikipedia” article. It contains the following dozen or so subheadings:


Criticism of the concept: the wiki model, usefulness as a reference, …, suitability as an encyclopedia, anti-elitism as a weakness, systemic bias in coverage, systemic bias in perspective, difficulty of fact-checking, use of dubious sources, exposure to vandals, exposure to political operatives and advocates, prediction of failure, privacy concerns, quality concerns, threat to traditional publishers, “waffling” prose and “antiquarianism,” anonymous editing, copyright issues, the “hive mind.” Criticism of the contributors: flame wars, fanatics and special interests, censorship, abuse of power, level of debate, male domination, community, EssJay and the lack of credential verification, humorous criticism.40

構想についての批判:ウィキのモデル、資料としての有用性、……、百科事典としてのふさわしさ、反エリート主義という弱点、対象範囲の系統的偏り、観点の系統的偏り、事実検証の困難さ、疑わしい情報源の利用、荒らしへの露出、プライバシーの懸念、品質の懸念、伝統的出版社への脅威、「どっちつかず」な書き方と「好古趣味」、匿名の編集、著作権の問題、「集合精神」。投稿者についての批判:フレーム合戦、狂信者と利害関係者、検閲、権力の濫用、論争の水準、男性の優越、コミュニティ、EssJay および資格検証の欠如、ユーモアのある批判40

Those are substantive concerns raised about Wikipedia, and each interesting in its own way, many of which are responded to on another page.41 Also, many of the specific complaints are part of a more general criticism in which Wikipedia is posed as representative of an alleged “2.0” shift toward a hivelike “Maoist” collective intelligence. The term Web 2.0, unavoidable in a discussion about Wikipedia, is attributed to a conversation about the naming of a conference in 2004 to discuss the reemergence of online commerce after the collapse of the 1990s “Internet bubble.” Tim O’Reilly, technology publisher, writes that chief among Web 2.0’s “rules for success” is to: “Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. (This is what I’ve elsewhere called ‘harnessing collective intelligence.’)”.42 However, many of the platforms claimed for Web 2.0 preceded it, including Amazon, Google, and Wikipedia. Ward Cunningham launched his wiki in 1995! I’m forced to agree with Robert McHenry, former editor in chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, that “Web 2.0” is a marketing term and shorthand “for complexes of ideas, feelings, events, and memories” that can mislead us, much like the term “the 60s.”43 (The label of modern can be equally frustrating, as we shall see.)

これらはウィキペディアに関する実質的な懸念であり、どれもそれぞれ興味深い。多くは別のページで応答されている41。また、具体的な苦情の多くはより一般的な批判の一部だ。すなわち、集団的「毛沢東」的な集合知にむけた「2.0」の移り変わりとされる現象の代表としてウィキペディアを位置付ける批判である。ウェブ2.0はウィキペディアについての議論において不可避な用語だが、これは1990年代の「インターネット・バブル」の崩壊ののちにきたオンライン商業の再出現を論じる2004年の会議の名称を決める際の会話に由来する。技術出版者ティム・オライリーはウェブ2.0の「成功への法則」としてもっとも重要なのが「より多くの人が使えばよりよくなるというネットワーク効果を利用する(私はほかの場所ではこれを「集合的知性を利用する」と呼んでいる)アプリケーションを構築する」ことだという42。しかし、アマゾン、グーグル、ウィキペディアなど、ウェブ2.0とされるプラットフォームの多くはウェブ2.0より前にあった。ウォード・カニンガムが自分のウィキを立ち上げたのは1995年である。「ウェブ2.0」はマーケティング用語であり、「60年代」という用語がそうであるように「思想・感覚・できごと・記憶の複合」の略記だとする元ブリタニカ百科事典主筆 Robert McHenry 43に私は同意せざるをえない。近代というレッテルもひとしく不満のもとになりうることをこのあとで見る。

Fortunately, while unavoidable, one can substantiate the notion of “Web 2.0” by focusing on user-generated content. Clay Shirky, in Here Comes Everybody, argues we are moving from a model of “filter then publish” toward “publish then filter”; filtering before was by publishers, today it is by one’s peers.44 This seems to be the most important feature of “2.0,” one represented by Craigslist postings, Amazon book reviews, blog entries, and Wikipedia articles. The production of content by Shirky’s “everybody” or Wikipedia’s “anyone” is what Wikipedia’s collaborative culture facilitates and what its critics lament.

不可避ではあるが、幸い、ユーザー生成型コンテントに焦点をあてることにより「ウェブ2.0」の概念を具体化することができる。クレイ・シャーキーは著書「Here Comes Everybody」で我々は「選別してから発行する」のモデルから「発行してから選別する」のモデルに移行しつつあると論じている。選別を先にするのは出版社だったが、今日ではピア(同僚)が選別する44。Craigslist への投稿、アマゾンの本のレビュー、ブログ投稿、ウィキペディア項目などに代表されるこのことは「2.0」のもっとも重要な特徴であるように思われ。シャーキーの「everybody」あるいはウィキペディアの「誰でも」によるコンテントの製作はウィキペディアの共同作業文化が助けるものであり、批評者がなげくものである。

In the following sections I engage criticism of Wikipedia, and Web 2.0 more generally, via four themes: collaborative practice, universal vision, encyclopedic impulse, and technological inspiration. In short, a caricature of the criticism that I address is that the fanatical mob producing Wikipedia exhibits little wisdom and is more like a Maoist cult of monkeys banging away on the keyboards and thumb pads of their gadgets, disturbing the noble repose of scholars and displacing high-quality content from the marketplace. Though I am personally sympathetic toward Wikipedia, my intention is not to argue for or against Wikipedia supporters or critics, but to identify the larger social issues associated with Wikipedia collaboration and the pursuit of the universal encyclopedia.

以降の節では次の4つの主題をとおしてウィキペディア、より一般にはウェブ2.0への批判にとりくむ。共同作業の実践、普遍性のヴィジョン、百科事典の衝動、技術的刺激である。端的には、ここで論じている批判を戯画化すると、あたかも毛沢東思想的な猿のカルトの一群がキーボードや thumb pads (未訳)をたたくようにして、ほとんど知性をみせない狂信的な群集がウィキペディアを製作し、学者の貴重な静寂をみだし、市場の高品質なコンテンツを置き換えている、というものになる。個人的には私はウィキペディアに同情的だが、ここでの意図はウィキペディア支持者や批判者に賛成や反対の論をなすことではなく、ウィキペディアの共同作業と普遍的百科事典の追求にかかわるよりおおきな社会的問題を同定することだ。

Collaborative Practice


In many conflicts misunderstandings are as common, if not more so, than genuine differences. There are elements to this in the arguments about Wikipedia, particularly over the way it is produced. Describing how knowledge is constituted can be difficult, but one can identify three ways for how we might think of knowledge production throughout history.45 First, we must admit that the hermit’s encyclopedia, devoid of all contact with the words of others, would be of little use. Even the monastic scribe copying parchment, and introducing some changes no doubt, is engaged in some degree of sociality. Some have described this interaction at a distance, in time or geography, as a type of stigmergy, like a wasp building upon the work of others.46 Second, the production of a reference work eventually exceeded the capability of any one person. What might be thought of as corporate production includes the interaction of financiers and subscribers, and of contributors and editors working within some, even if loose, form of social organization. Finally, there is Wikipedia and other open content. In earlier chapters I explore how this community and its culture facilitate the production of an encyclopedia. It is on this point that there is much argument, and, I think, some misunderstanding. The central concern seems to be how we can conceive of our humanity in working together, and its implications. (If this sounds confusing or overly grand, bear with me!) I’ll begin with two related buzzwords: the hive-mind and collective intelligence.

衝突において、誤解は純粋な差異に劣らず頻出する。ウィキペディア、特にそれが製作される方法についての議論ではこの要素が複数ある。知識がどのようにして構築されるかを記述するのは難しいが、歴史をつうじて知識生産についての考えかたが3つみとめられる45。第一に、他者の言説からまったく隔絶された隠者の百科事典は、ほとんど無用のものであることを認めなければならない。羊皮紙を複写する(そしてきっと変更を導入する)修道院の写字生ですら、一定の社会性にかかわっていた。時間的・地理的に距離をおいてこの交流を一種の、他者の作業のうえに築きあげる蜂のような stigmergy として記述した者もいる46。第二に、レファレンス資料の製作は最終的にどんな個人の能力をも超えてしまった。企業製作として考えられるものとして、ある種の、ゆるやかであれ、社会的な組織のなかで活動する経理担当者と購読者、あるいは寄稿者と編集者の交流があげられる。最後に、ウィキペディアとほかのオープンコンテントがある。これまでの章でこのコミュニティとその文化がどのようにして百科事典の製作をたすけるかをわたしは調べてきた。この点について、論争がおおくあり誤解もあるように思う。中心的な懸念はひとつになって取り組む人類をどう理解すればいいか、そしてその含意するところだと思われる。(これがわかりにくく大袈裟すぎるようにきこえたとしたら、辛抱してほしい) 集合精神と集合的知性という関連するふたつのバズワードからはじめよう。

A hot topic of the 1990s was chaos and complexity theory; Kevin Kelly, former editor in chief of Wired, published a popular book on the topic entitled Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World.47 Kelly popularized a burgeoning understanding of how order can emerge from seeming chaos: how the beautiful midair choreography of a flock of birds arises when many individuals follow very simple rules of interaction. This “new biology” was mostly gleaned from and applied to the natural world, but Kelly also posited it as a theory in understanding social organization and intelligence via the notion of the “hive mind.” This idea would persist into the new millennium when a number of new media-related phenomenon arose demanding explanation. In 2002 Howard Rheingold, who had previously authored a seminal and popular treatment of virtual communities, published Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution.48 In the latter book Rheingold argues for new forms of emergent social interaction resulting from mobile telephones, pervasive computing, location-based services, and wearable computers. Two years later, in The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki made a similar argument, but instead of focusing on the particular novelty of technological trends, he engaged more directly with the social science of group behavior and decision making.49 In The Wisdom of Crowds Surowiecki argues that groups of people can make very good decisions when there is diversity, independence, decentralization, and appropriate aggregation within the group. This works well for problems of cognition (for which there is a single answer) and coordination (by which an optimal group solution arises from individual self-interest, but requires feedback), but less so for cooperation (for which an optimal group solution requires trust and group orientation, i.e., social structure/culture).

1990年代の流行の話題のひとつはカオスと複雑性理論だった。Wired の元編集長ケヴィン・ケリーは『Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World』という人気のでた本を出版した47。個々の鳥が非常に単純なやりとりの規則にしたがうと一群の鳥の空中の美しい舞いがあらわれるように、カオスからどのようにして秩序が創発するかについて深まりつつある理解をケリーは一般にわかりやすくした。この「新しい生物学」はほとんどが自然界から刈り取られ自然界に適用されたが、ケリーは社会的組織と知性を理解するための理論として「集合精神」の概念をつうじて位置付けた。新しい千年紀に入りメディア関連の新しい現象が出現し説明がもとめられたときまでこの概念は生き残った。ヴァーチャル・コミュニティについて画期的で人気のでた著作をそれ以前にしていた Howard Rheingold が2002年に「Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution」を出版した48。そこで Rheingold は、携帯電話、侵襲的コンピューティング、位置情報を利用するサービス、ウェアラブル・コンピュータがもたらした創発的社会相互作用のあたらしい形態を論じた。2年後、ジェームズ・スロウィッキーが The Wisdom of Crowds(『「みんなの意見」は案外正しい』)で似た議論をした。ただし彼は特定の新しい技術的潮流に注目するかわりに集団行動と意思決定の社会科学により直接的にとりくんだ49。多様性・独立性・脱中心性・適切な集約性が集団内にあるとき、人の集団は非常によい意思決定ができると The Wisdom of Crowdsでスロウィッキーは論じた。(単一のこたえのある)認知の問題と(個人の利己から集団として最適な解決策が出現するがフィードバックを要する)調整の問題にはうまくはたらくが、(集団として最適な解決策には信頼と集団の方向性、つまり社会構造/文化が必要とされる)協調の問題にはあまりうまくはたらかない。

None of these authors engage the case of Wikipedia, which was just beginning to receive significant press coverage at the time. But since the publication of Smart Mobs and The Wisdom of Crowds, two questions have arisen: Are these theories on group dynamics applicable to understanding Wikipedia’s apparent success; and if so, is that a good thing? But let’s begin with the latter question first: many Wikipedia critics think the collective intelligence model is applicable, and are repulsed by the process and the result.

当時本格的な報道の対象になりはじめていたばかりだったウィキペディアの事例には以上のうちどの著者もとりくんでいない。Smart Mobs と The Wisdom of Crowds の発行以来、ふたつの疑問がしょうじた。成功したようにみえるウィキペディアへの理解に適用できる集団力学の理論はあるか?あるなら、それはよい理論か? 後者の疑問からはじめよう。ウィキペディア批判者は集合知性のモデルが適用できると考え、その手続きと結果に逆襲される。

Michael Gorman, the acerbic librarian encountered at the beginning of this chapter, writes: “The central idea behind Wikipedia is that it is an important part of an emerging mass movement aimed at the ‘democratization of knowledge’ — an egalitarian cyberworld in which all voices are heard and all opinions are welcomed”.50 However, the underlying “ ‘wisdom of the crowds’ and ‘hive mind’ mentality is a direct assault on the tradition of individualism in scholarship that has been paramount in Western societies.” Furthermore, whereas this enthusiasm may be nothing more than easily dismissible “technophiliac rambling,” “there is something very troubling about the bleak, dehumanizing vision it embodies ‘this monster brought forth by the sleep of reason.’”51 In a widely read and discussed essay entitled “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism,” Jaron Lanier, computer scientist and author, concedes that decentralized production can be effective at a few limited tasks, but that we must also police mediocre and malicious contributions. Furthermore, the greatest problem is that the hive mind leads to a loss of individuality and uniqueness: “The beauty of the Internet is that it connects people. The value is in the other people. If we start to believe the Internet itself is an entity that has something to say, we’re devaluing those people and making ourselves into idiots.”52 Andrew Keen, 1990s Internet entrepreneur turned Web 2.0 contrarian, likens the process to “the blind leading the blind — infinite monkeys providing infinite information for its readers, perpetuating the cycle of misinformation and ignorance.”53 Author Mark Helprin, like Gorman, unwittingly stepped upon a hornets’ nest of online dissent with an op-ed. His call to extend copyrights prompted a backlash that he responded to with a book defending his proposal and counter-attacking the “functionally illiterate” digital barbarians. Because he was apparently unaware of the controversy associated with copyright extension and shocked by the vociferous response, he likened the way people work together online as termites that “go steadily and quietly about their business, almost unnoticed” until “an apparently solid house collapses in a foamy heap.”54 (Lawrence Lessig’s review characterizes Helprin’s book as an odd combination of memoir and poorly informed policy.55)

本章の冒頭でであった辛辣な司書マイケル・ゴーマンはこう書く。「ウィキペディアの背後にある中心的な考えはそれが”知識の民主化”—あらゆる声に耳がかたむけられあらゆる意見が歓迎される、平等主義のサイバー世界—を目的とした大衆運動の重要な一部だというものだ50。しかしその底にある”群集の知恵”と”集合精神”のメンタリティは、西洋社会で支配的な学術における個人主義の伝統への直接的な攻撃だ」。さらに、この情熱は「”技術偏愛的な気まぐれ”にすぎないものとしてかたづけてしまえるかもしれない」が「そこに体現される—この怪物がうみだした—寒々しい非人間的なヴィジョンには非常に厄介なところがある」51。広く読まれ議論された随筆「Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism」で計算機科学者で作家の Jaron Lanier は脱中心化された生産はかぎられた数種類の作業には有効だと譲歩したが、品質にすぐれず悪意ある貢献がないか監視する必要があるとした。さらに、集合精神は個性と唯一性の喪失につながるとした。「インターネットの美点は人々をつなげることであり、その価値はほかの人々にある。インターネットそれ自体がなんらかの意見をもった実態であると信じてしまえば、そうした人々の価値をおとしめ、私たち自身をバカにししまう」52。1990年代のインターネット起業家で Web 2.0 への逆張りをしたアンドリュー・キーンは Web 2.0 の過程を「盲人が盲人を導く—無限匹の猿が無限の情報を読者にあたえ、誤情報と無知の循環を持続させる」とたとえた53。作家 Mark Helprin はゴーマンと同様、ある op-ed でしらずしらずのうちに異義をとなえるオンラインの蜂の巣をふみつけてしまった。著作権を延長しようという彼のよびかけは反感をよび、彼は自分の提案を擁護する本を書き「機能的文盲」のディジタル野蛮人に反撃した。著作権延長にむすびついた論争を認識していなかったために彼は手厳しい反応に衝撃をうけたとみえ、々がオンラインで一緒にはたらくやりかたを「堅固にみえる家が泡の山となり崩れさる」まで「ほとんど気づかれないまま着実かつこっそりと仕事をなしとげる」シロアリにたとえた54。(ローレンス・レッシグの批評は Helprin の著書を回想と知識不足な方針との奇妙な組み合わせと描写した55

Yet, the question of whether this model is actually relevant to Wikipedia is disputed by many, including prominent Wikipedians. In May 2005 Wikipedian Alex Krupp introduced Surowiecki to the wikipedia-l list via a message entitled “Wikipedia, Emergence, and The Wisdom of Crowds”:

しかしこのモデルが実際ウィキペディアにとって重要かどうかという問題については、著名なウィキペディアンを含め多くの人が争っている。2005年5月ウィキペディアン Alex Krupp は「ウィキペディア、創発、群集の知恵」という題の投稿でスロウィッキーを wikipedia-l メーリングリストに招いた。

I think all Wikipedians would enjoy the book…. The basic premise is that crowds of relatively ignorant individuals make better decisions than small groups of experts. I’m sure everyone here agrees with this as Wikipedia is run this way.56


Jimmy Wales was quick to respond that he did not agree, and stressed as much in his public talks because “Wikipedia functions a lot more like a traditional organization than most people realize — it’s a community of thoughtful people who know each other, not a colony of ants.”57 Another Wikipedian expressed a similar sentiment based on his experience that Wikipedia is built by “dedicated editors collaborating and reasoning together … it is hard to recognize the effect, if any, of ‘swarm intelligence’ on the project’s development.”58


I participated in the thread myself, hoping to move beyond the swarm label towards why the theory might be relevant to Wikipedia production if it can be characterized by diversity, independence, and decentralization within the group. In particular, these conditions might augment other theorists’ explanations of “commons-based peer production”:

私もこのスレッドに参加しており、群れのレッテルカラこの理論が集団の多様性、独立性、脱中心性で特徴づけられるならばウィキペディア製作に関係するかもしれないという方向に動かせないかと思っていた。具体的には、こういった条件は「コモンズにもとづく peer production」というほかの理論家の説明を補完できるかもしれない。

If the asynchronous and bite-sized character of Open contributions contribute to their success (Benkler “fine-grained,” Sproull “microcontributions”), is that all? What kind of micro-contributions are necessary? If the contributions are crap, if they aren’t coming from diverse participants (e.g., not “group think”), independent (e.g., not “herding”), and decentralized and filtered/aggregated well (e.g., not “US intelligence” ;-) ) then they might be useful.59

非同期の一口サイズのオープンな貢献(Bankler の “fine-grained”、Sproull の”microcontributions” )がその成功に寄与するとして、それだけでしょうか? どういう 種類の micro-contributions が必要でしょうか? もし 貢献がゴミだとして、(”集団思考”ではなく)多様性のある参加者、(”herding”ではなく)独立性のある参加者、(”米国の知性ではなく” ;-) )脱中心的で選別され集約された参加者から来ていれば、有用かもしれません。59

However, even the premise of my point was disputed: what role did diverse, sometimes anonymous, fine-grained micro-contributions play in Wikipedia production? Scholars Yochai Benkler and Lee Sproull were among the first to argue the importance of such contributions in online communities.60 However, while present, how relevant was this for Wikipedia production? Ward Cunningham has identified openness and incrementalism as key design principles of the wiki.61 Others focused on the fact that a relatively tight-knit minority did the majority of the work and the majority did little, often explained by way of theories of the long tail, Pareto’s Distribution, Zipf’s Law, or the 80/20 Rule; or that we were witnessing the power of “mass collaboration.”62 Oddly, as reviewed in chapter 1, two seemingly contrary popular theories were being used to explain Wikipedia at the same time: is the crowd or the elite doing a majority of the work?

しかし、私の論の前提にも論争がある。多様で、ときには非同期で、粒度の細かい micro-contributions がウィキペディア製作でどのような役割をはたすのか? オンライン・コミュニティにおけるこうした貢献の重要性を論じたはじめての学者としてYochai Benkler と Lee Sproull がいる60。しかし、これは存在するものの、ウィキペディア製作にとってどれくらい重要なのか? ウォード・カニンガムは開放性と漸次性をウィキのおもな設計原理として同定した61。比較的つよく結束された少数派が作業の大半を済ませ、多数派が少量を担うという事実に焦点をあてる人もいる。このことはロングテールの理論、パレートの分布、ジップの法則、80/20の法則、あるいは「大規模共同作業」のちからが現れているのだと説明されることも多い62。奇妙なのは、第1章でまとめたように、みためのうえで対立するふたつの人気ある理論がウィキペディアを説明するのに使われていることだ。群集とエリートのどちらが作業の大半を済ませるのか?

In any case, the important point was that Wikipedians typically rejected any characterization of Wikipedia as some sort of smart mob, as Wales did:

どちらにしても、重要な点は smart mob のたぐいとして描写されることをウィキペディアンが典型的には拒絶するということだ。ウェールズもそうした。

I should point out that I like Surweicki’s thesis just fine, it’s just that I’m not convinced that “swarm intelligence” is very helpful in understanding how Wikipedia works — in fact, it might be an impediment, because it leads us away from thinking about how the community interacts in a process of reasoned discourse.63


Of course, as is evident in my concern with Wikipedia culture in earlier chapters, I wrote that I agreed “with Jimbo that any posited explanation that fails to account for the dynamics and culture of good-willed interaction has got it wrong. So in that sense, Surowiecki is (perhaps) necessary but (certainly) not sufficient.”64 Yet, despite an admittedly incomplete understanding and Wales’s public attempts to disclaim Wikipedia as a “hive-mind,” the accusation continues to be raised. For example, in September 2006 an otherwise informative article entitled “The Hive: Can Thousands of Wikipedians Be Wrong?” appeared in the Atlantic Monthly.65 In addition to likening online collaboration to a hornet’s nest and termite infestation, Helprin made an even less favorable comparison: these interactions were like a “quick sexual encounter at a bacchanal with someone whose name you never know and face you will not remember, if, indeed, you have actually seen it.” The resulting works “are often so quick, careless, and primitive that they are analogous to spitting on the street”.66 In his 2006 “Digital Maoism” essay, Lanier recast the claim of the hive as implying inevitable incremental improvement: “A core belief of the wiki world is that whatever problems exist in the wiki will be incrementally corrected as the process unfolds.”67 The essay was also published with commentary from a number of prominent thinkers. Wales responded that Lanier’s allegation was unfounded:

これまでの章でのウィキペディアについての私の関心からも明らかなように、もちろん私は「善意の交流のダイナミクスと文化をとりあつかえない前提の説明は誤りだという点でジンボに」同意すると書いた。その意味で、「スロウィッキーは(もしかすると)必要であっても(明らかに)十分ではない」64。しかし、不完全なことがたしかな理解であるにもかかわらず、またウィキペディアを「群知性」として主張するのをウェールズが公開の場で否定したにもかかわらず、この非難はもちあがりつづける。たとえば、2006年9月に「The Hive: Can Thousands of Wikipedians Be Wrong?」というそれ以外の点では勉強になる記事が Atlantic Monthly に載った。オンライン共同作業を蜂の巣やシロアリの山にたとえたうえ、Helprin はさらにこのましくない比較をした。こうしたやりとりは「飲み屋であった、名前もしらない、(顔をみていたとして)顔をおもいだすこともない誰かとの短い性的交渉」のようなものであり、その成果物は「短時間で、注意せず、原始的なやりかたでできたものであり、立ち小便に類する」という66。2006年の『ディジタル毛沢東思想』で Lanier は、漸次的改善においてさけられないものと示唆して集合精神の主張を再度もちだした。「ウィキ世界の核にある信念はどんな問題もそのてつづきがすすむにつれ漸次的に修正されるということだ」67。この随筆は著名な思想家数名の意見文とともに出版された。Lanier の疑義には根拠がないとウェールズは応じた。

… this alleged “core belief” is not one which is held by me, nor as far as I know, by any important or prominent Wikipedians. Nor do we have any particular faith in collectives or collectivism as a mode of writing. Authoring at Wikipedia, as everywhere, is done by individuals exercising the judgment of their own minds.68


Yochai Benkler, law professor and seminal theorist of “commons-based peer production” also responded: “Wikipedia is not faceless, by and large. Its participants develop, mostly, persistent identities (even if not by real name) and communities around the definitions.”69 Addressing the question of collectivism and the implication of rosy utopianism, Clay Shirky noted, “Wikipedia is the product not of collectivism but of unending argumentation; the corpus grows not from harmonious thought but from constant scrutiny and emendation.”70

法学教授で「コモンズにもとづく peer production」の画期的な理論家 Yochai Benkler もこう返答した。「ウィキペディアは概して顔がないわけではない。その参加者はおおむね(実名ではないにしろ)継続性のある人格をつくり、定義文のまわりにコミュニティをつくる(要検討)69。楽観的すぎるユートピア主義と集産主義についての疑義をうけてクレイ・シャーキーこうは指摘した。「ウィキペディアは集産主義ではなくおわりない論証の成果物であり、調和をもった思考からではなく監視と修正からうまれる」。

Contrary to the allegations of critics, Wikipedia supporters argued that wikis were both a powerful tool “that fosters and empowers responsible individual expression”71 and a community of peers working within a collaborative culture. Neither of which was best described by the notion of a swarm, hive, or collective intelligence. Indeed, it seems that the actual understanding of Wikipedia supporters is not that different from Gorman’s conception of an encyclopedia. Gorman claims that whereas a traditional encyclopedia is “the product of many minds,” it is not “the product of a collective mind.” Instead, “It is an assemblage of texts that have been written by people with credentials and expertise and that have been edited, verified, and supplied with a scholarly apparatus enabling the user to locate desired knowledge.”72


The real issue to explore, then, is the extent to which access to encyclopedic production is provided to those without “credentials and expertise.”


Universal Vision


A simple summary of the universal encyclopedic vision is its aspiration of expansiveness. Otlet’s “Universal Repertory” and Wells’ “World Brain” were conceived of as furthering an increased scope in production and access. Reference work compilers would be joined by world scholars and international technocrats. Furthermore, every student might have these extensive resources at hand, in a personal, inexpensive, and portable format. It was hoped this collection of intellect would yield a greater sense of mutual accord throughout the world. Nor would the world encyclopedia limit itself to text; new media and tools were accommodated and envisioned. The universal vision persisted into the network age, becoming more modest in its hope of prompting world peace, but pushing accessibility even further. Once Project Gutenberg launched, content could be had for the cost of network access; then as access became pervasive, information became free “as in beer”; and then in Stallman’s proposal for a “Universal Encyclopedia,” content would be free “as in freedom”: free to be distributed and modified without restriction, other than reciprocity.73 In the Interpedia days it was thought that reasonable and well-educated people might contribute — how most Internet users could conceive of themselves at the time. Nupedia, too, had the potential to open up contribution, even if it was still limited to the formally educated. And, of course, with Wikipedia almost “anyone” can edit, something not even conceived of — or perhaps even approved of — by the earliest visionaries.

拡張性を熱望することが普遍的な百科事典のヴィジョンを端的な要約となる。オトレの『普遍書誌目録』、ウェルズの『世界頭脳』は製作とアクセスの範囲を広げることを促進するものとして理解された。レファレンス資料編纂者が世界の学者、国際技術官僚と協力する。さらに、全学生が個人用の安価な携帯形式でこの広範な資料を手にもつことができるかもしれない。この知識の集成は世界中で相互に調和する感覚をつよめるものとして望まれた。また、世界百科事典はテキストにとどまらない。新しい媒体や道具が提供され想定された。普遍性のヴィジョンは、世界平和をひきだす望みはひかえめになったがアクセス性については強まって、ネットワーク時代にも持続した。プロジェクト・グーテンベルクが公開されると、ネットワークアクセスの料金だけでコンテンツが手にはいるようになる。アクセスが浸透するにつれ、情報は「ビールのように」フリーになる。ストールマンの「普遍的百科事典」の提案により、コンテンツは「自由の意味で」フリーなる。つまり互恵性のほかは制約なしで自由に配布でき、変更できる73。Interpedia の時期には合理的で教育のある—当時のインターネット利用者が自認していたような—人たちが寄稿できると考えられた。ニューペディアも、制度的教育をうけた人にまだかぎられていたとはいえ、潜在的には寄稿にひらかれていた。そしてもちろん、ウィキペディアによってほとんど「誰でも」編集できるようになった。初期のヴィジョナリーたちには思いもよらなかった—おそらく承認されなかった—ことだ。

Critics of Wikipedia find this to be a cockeyed dream that is quickly becoming an all-too-real nightmare, and liken the universal vision to failed utopias and feared dystopias. In a Wired profile of Tim O’Reilly, Steven Levy touches upon the Internet and collective consciousness, and asks if Web 2.0 might be “the successor to the human potential movement”; Nick Carr, a journalist covering information technology, claims that even entertaining this question is evidence of unhinged rapturous “revelation.”74 Michael Gorman equates it with the siren song that lures sailors to shipwreck.75 Thomas Mann, another librarian, invokes Aldous Huxley in an essay entitled “Brave New (Digital) World” — subtitled “Foolishness 2.0” — and compares the vision of user-generated content to naïve French and Marxist revolutionaries.76 He argues we would be better served emulating the pragmatic authors of the Federalist Papers, cognizant of the pathologies that infect social organisms (e.g., that “short-sightedness, selfishness, and ignorance are constant factors in human life”), rather than celebrating the unproven presumption that technology can cure all.

ウィキペディアの批判者は、これは馬鹿げた夢でありすぐに現実的すぎる悪夢になるとみなし、普遍性のヴィジョンを失敗したユートピア、恐れられるディストピアにたとえる。Wired での Tim O’Reilly の伝記で Steven Levy はインターネットと集合的意識にふれ、ウェブ2.0 は「人間性回復運動の後継者」なのではとたずねる。こうした疑問を検討すること自体が「啓示」で動揺しうかれていることの証拠だと情報技術を題材とする記者 Nick Carr は主張する74。マイケル・ゴーマンはそれを船を難破へとさそうセイレーンの歌に同一視する75。別の司書 Thomas Mann は『すばらしい新(ディジタル)世界 Brave New (Digital) World』(副題「Foolishness 2.0」)という論考でオルダス・ハクスリーをひきあいにだして、ユーザー生成コンテンツのヴィジョンを素朴なフランスとマルクス主義の革命主義者に比較した76。 Mann は社会有機体に感染する病理(すなわち「短気・身勝手さ・無知は人生に常にある要素である」ということ)を認識していた「ザ・フェデラリスト」の実践的な著者たちを真似するほうが、技術がすべてを治療するというまだ証明されていない仮定を賞賛するよりも我々のやくにたつだろうと論じた。

In this case, the larger anxiety that Wikipedia has triggered is clear, and like that of its predecessors it reflects a concern about authority. Much as the Encyclopédie challenged the authority of church and state and recognized the merit of the ordinary artisan, or that the Third reflected larger social changes manifested in every day speech, Wikipedia is said to favor mediocrity over expertise. Or from Andrew Keen’s perspective, Wikipedia elevates The Cult of the Amateur at the expense of the professional.

この場合、ウィキペディアがひきおこしたより広い意味での不安は明白であり、その先駆者がしたのとと動揺に権威についての懸念を反映している。『百科全書』が教会と国家の権威に反抗し普通の職人の長所をみとめたのとよくにて、またウェブスターの『第三版』が日常の口語にあらわれていた社会的変化を反映したのとにて、ウィキペディアは専門性より凡庸を好んだといわれる。あるいは、Andrew Keen のみかたでは、ウィキペディアは専門職を犠牲にして「The Cult of the Amateur」をもちあげたということになる。

The implication of this shift towards user-generated content and niche markets is contested. Or, it is not so much that different authors envision different futures, but viscerally react to that same future differently. (However, we should remember that all those characteristics now associated with print — its “fixity,” authority, and credibility — cannot be taken for granted and their establishment took some time to develop as a “matter of convention and trust, of culture and practice.”77) The popular InstaPundit blogger Glenn Reynolds has a positive interpretation as seen in the title of his book: An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths.78 And Chris Anderson, the current editor in chief of Wired, finds “selling less for more” in The Long Tail to be the exciting future of business because retailers can now offer easy access to the “long tail” of niche markets.79 However, on the flip side, Keen argues that “today’s Internet is killing our culture.” Keen begins his book by mourning the closing of Tower Records, a favorite of his in which he could peruse, hands on, a deep and diverse catalog of music. Independent bookstores and small record labels have also disappeared, and should rampant piracy and the flood of mediocre user-generated content continue, other creative industries face the same fate. Yet, while Keen laments the effects of a cult, Anderson finds value in the long tail: celebrating the easy access and massive selection of Amazon (for books), Rhapsody (for music), and Netflix (for movies).

ユーザー生成型コンテンツとニッチ市場にむけたこの変化の含意するところには異論がある。作家によって未来のヴィジョンが違うというよりも、同じ未来への無意識の反応が違うともいえる(ただし、「固定性」・権威性・信頼性など印刷に関連づけられたすべての特徴があたりまえにあったものだと思うべきではなく、「慣例と信用、文化と実践の問題」として時間をかけて確立されたことを忘れるべきではない77)。『InstaPundit』で人気ブロガー Glenn Reynolds は著書『An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths』の表題のとおり肯定的な解釈をしている。小売業者がニッチ市場の「ロングテール」へのアクセスを簡単に提供できるようになるため、「もっと多くの人のためにもっと少なく売る」という商業の未来はわくわくすると Wired の現編集長 Chris Anderson は The Long Tail で述べた79。しかし、その反面、Keen は「今日のインターネットは文化をダメにしている」と論じる。深く多様な音楽のカタログをに実際に触れあじわうことのできた Tower Records をこのんでいた Keen は著書の冒頭でその廃業をおしんだ。独立系の書店と小さなレコードレーベルも消え、凶暴な海賊版と凡庸なユーザー生成型コンテンツの洪水がつづくとすれば、ほかのクリエイティブ産業もおなじ運命に直面するだろう。しかし、Keen がカルトの影響をなげくのに対し、Anderson はロングテールに価値をみいだす。Amazon(本)、Rhapsody(音楽)、Netflix(映画)への容易なアクセスと膨大な選択肢を賞賛するのだ。

However, besides implications for the marketplace, the question of authority also invokes concerns about autonomy and liberty. Matthew Battles, a journalist and librarian, responds to critics who prefer the professional to the amateur by asking who is going to force the cat back in the bag:

しかし、市場についての含意のほかに、権威性への疑義は自立性と自由についての懸念もひきおこす。覆水を盆に返そうとしているのは誰かとたずねることでジャーナリストで司書の Matthew Battles は批判者にこたえる。

Does Gorman really believe, along with Andrew Keen, that “the most poorly educated and inarticulate among us” should not use the media to “express and realize themselves”? That they should keep quiet, learn their place, and bow to such bewigged and alienating confections as “authority” and “authenticity”? Authority, after all, flows ultimately from results, not from such hierophantic trappings as degrees, editorial mastheads, and neoclassical columns. And if the underprivileged (or under-titled) among us are supposed to keep quiet, who will enforce their silence—the government? Universities and foundations? Internet service providers and media conglomerates? Are these the authorities—or their avatars in the form of vetted, credentialed content—to whom it should be our privilege to defer?80

「私たちのうちでもっとも教育がひくく弁のたたない人」は「自分を表現し自己実現する」のにメディアをつかうべきではないとゴーマンや Andrew Keen はほんとうに信じているのか? だまってみのほどをしり、古風なかつらをつけた疎外的なせりふまわしの「権威」や「本格」にあたまをさげるべきだと? 権威は究極的には学位や編集局や新古典主義建築の柱などといった秘儀的な装備からではなく成果からうまれるものだ。私たちのうちで資格のたりない(あるいは称号のたりない)人がだまるべきであるなら、誰がその沈黙を強要するのか? 政府か、大学や財団か、インターネット・サービス・プロバイダかメディア複合企業か? そうした権威たち、もしくは精査され認定されたコンテンツの形式をとる化身たちに、私たちの特権を委任するということか?80

Shirky similarly notes the “scholars-eye view is the key to Gorman’s complaint: so long as scholars are content with their culture, the inability of most people to enjoy similar access is not even a consideration.”81


This concern about access and authority is further manifested by way of argument about two labels: modernism and Maoism. Matthew Battles, continuing his response on authority, argues that genuine “digital Maoism” emerges when users are bullied to be kept silent:

アクセスと権威についてのこの懸念は、近代主義と毛沢東思想というふたつのレッテルについての議論としてあらわれる。Matthew Battles は権威についてのこたえをつづけるなかで、純粋な「ディジタル毛沢東思想」はユーザーが無理やりだまらせられた場合に出現すると論じる。

Experience, expertise, and authority do retain their power on the web. What’s evolving now are tools to discover and amplify individual expertise wherever it may emerge. Maoist collectivism is bad — but remember that Maoism is a thing enabled and enforced by authority. Similarly, digital Maoism rears its head whenever we talk about limiting the right to individual expression that, with the power of the web behind it, is creating a culture of capricious beauty and quirky, surprising utility. Digital Maoism will emerge when users are cowed by authority, when they revert to the status of mere consumer, when the ISPs and the media conglomerates reduce the web to a giant cable TV box.82


Interestingly, critics and supporter alike recognize threads of Enlightenment and modern values in contemporary knowledge work. In their own way, supporters and critics each lay claim. In June 2007 Encyclopædia Britannica hosted an extensive “Web 2.0 Forum” on its blog, upon which danah boyd, a researcher of online communities and a Ph.D. student at the time, declared:

おもしろいことに、批判者と支持者はどちらもおなじように、現代の知識労働に啓蒙主義と近代性の価値観の系譜を認める。それぞれにやりかたで、支持者と批判者は主張する。2007年6月ブリタニカ百科事典は広範な「Web 2.0 Forum」をブログ上で主催した。当時博士課程学生でオンラインコミュニティ研究者の danah boyd はこう宣言した。

I entered the academy because I believe in knowledge production and dissemination. I am a hopeless Marxist. I want to equal the playing field; I want to help people gain access to information in the hopes that they can create knowledge that is valuable for everyone. I have lost faith in traditional organizations leading the way to mass access and am thus always on the lookout for innovative models to produce and distribute knowledge.83


Two points are worthwhile noting about this comment. First, boyd — who prefers her name in lowercase — is comparing new knowledge production models with that of the traditional academy, something she implies some dissatisfaction with here and more pointedly elsewhere.84 Historian Peter Burke argues that the institutions of the university, academy, and scholarly society each arose when its predecessor failed to accommodate new approaches to knowledge production and dissemination,85 perhaps Wikipedia stands astride another such fault. Second, boyd self-identified — I assume sincerely — as a Marxist, and this merits some framing. A common insult levied against those in the free culture movement is the aspersion of communism — or socialism and now even Maoism.86 Such statements are usually received as an insult, as intended, and denied. Indeed, given the strong libertarian roots of Internet culture it is a grave mistake to accept such a generalization. Jimmy Wales, a former futures and options trader, credits Friedrich Hayek, a famous free market thinker, with informing his understanding of collective behavior.87 In any case, despite red-baiting or parading, one should remember that Karl Marx was as “modern” as Adam Smith; by this I mean that although mechanisms of social action were different, each was relatively optimistic about the power of human beings to positively shape their own destiny.

このコメントについて注目すべき箇所が2点ある。まず、boyd - 彼女は名前を小文字で書かれることを望んでいる - はあたらしい知識生産のモデルを伝統的なアカデミーと比べ、ここで後者に一定の不満があると示唆し、他ではもっとあからさまに示唆している84。大学・アカデミー・学会という制度は、前にあったものが知識生産のあたらしいアプローチに適合できなかったときにそれぞれ出現したと歴史家 Peter Burke は論じており85、いまひとつのそうした失敗にウィキペディアはまたがっているのかもしれない。つぎに、boyd は - おそらく真摯に - マルクス主義者を自認しており、このことには多少ふちどり(framing はこのように比喩と解釈してよいか要検討)をつけるべきだろう。フリーカルチャー運動にいる者にむけておしつけられるよくある侮辱のひとつは共産主義もしくは社会主義であり、ここでは毛沢東思想の烙印にまでなる86。こうした主張は侮辱としてうけとられるように意図され、そしてそのことは否定される。たしかに、インターネット文化に自由主義の根があることからしてそのような一般化をうけいれることは大きな誤りだ。先物・オプション取引のトレーダーだったジミー・ウェールズは集団のふるまいについての彼の理解は自由市場思想家フリードリヒ・ハイエクに由来するとのべた87。いずれにしても、赤として迫害もしくはみせつけらるにもかかわらず、カール・マルクスはアダム・スミスとおなじくらい「近代的」だったということを思い出すべきだ。というのは、社会的行為の仕組みはことなっていたものの、どちらも人類がみずからの運命を肯定的かたちづくる力について比較的楽観的だったからだ。

The critics too, will admit to a modern streak: Mann writes that modernism was a good thing, but presently “people’s faith in the transformative effects of gadgets” is utopian, and as Gorman points out, a siren song.88 Gorman himself responds in an essay about Google’s efforts to scan millions of books:

批判者も近代性については認めている。Mann は近代主義はよいが、現在の「ガジェットに変革をおこす効果があるという人々の信念」は夢想的であり、ゴーマンが指摘したようにセイレーンの歌だと書いた88。何百万冊もの本をスキャンしようとするグーグルのとりくみについての随筆でゴーマン自身はこう応答している。

How could I possibly be against access to the world’s knowledge? Of course, like most sane people, I am not against it and, after more than 40 years of working in libraries, am rather for it. I have spent a lot of my long professional life working on aspects of the noble aim of Universal Bibliographic Control — a mechanism by which all the world’s recorded knowledge would be known, and available, to the people of the world. My sin against bloggery is that I do not believe this particular project will give us anything that comes anywhere near access to the world’s knowledge.89

世界の知識へのアクセスに私が反対だということがありうるのか? もちろん、良識あるほとんどの人々とおなじように、私は反対しない。図書館に40年以上勤めた私としてはむしろ賛成する。国際書誌コントロールは世界の記録された知識を世界中の人々に知らしめ利用可能にする仕組みだが、私は職業人生の多くをその崇高な目標の一部のために費した。私がブログ行為とたもとをわかつのは、この事業が世界の知識へのアクセスに関連するような何かをもたらすと信じていないからだ。89

Keen too, while critical of Wikipedia, refuses to cede the label of modern. In response to Wales describing himself in a widely read article as “very much an Enlightenment kind of guy,” Keen argues that Wales “is a counter-enlightenment guy, a wide-eyed-dramatic, seducing us with the ideal of the noble amateur.”90 At this point, as is the case with “Web 2.0,” I balk. I don’t question that it is convenient to use a label commonly associated with a historical period so as to evoke a common understanding of the prominent events and related social themes. However, should we want to argue about whether something is, or is not, modern it is best if we ground that discussion with theoretical clarity and historical specificity. Otherwise, we may be speaking past each other — this is why I speak of a twentieth-century universal aspiration, encyclopedic impulse, technological inspiration, and collaborative practice.

Keen もウィキペディアについて批判的ではあるが近代性のレッテルを譲ろうとしない。広く読まれた記事で「かなりのところ啓蒙主義的な男」だと自称したウェールズに対して、ウェールズは「大げさに目をみひらいてアマチュアの偉大さの理想で誘惑する、反啓蒙主義的な男」だとKeen は論じた90。この点について、「ウェブ2.0」の場合と同様、私はためらう。重要なできごとや関連する社会的テーマの共通理解を促進するために、一般にある時代に結びつけられるレッテルを使うのが便利だということに疑いはない。しかし、あるものが近代的かそうでないかを論じるときには、理論的に明晰で歴史的に特定された議論にもとづくのが最善だ。20世紀の普遍性の探求、百科事典の衝動、技術からの着想、共同作業の実践について私が語るのはこのためだ。

In any case, in this argument about how Wikipedia is collaboratively produced we see a larger argument about authority, its institutions, individual autonomy, as well as possible consequences for content production.


Encyclopedic Impulse


A popular perspective on the reference work is the biography of the people who create them. The range of personality types spans a spectrum ranging from noble self-improvers to the criminally insane, though they all shared a commitment to their craft. This same commitment can be seen in present-day Wikipedians, and is a target of scorn by some critics.


As we saw with Otlet and Wells, idealists and enthusiasts are not at all uncommon in the roster of those concerned with collecting knowledge. Suzanne Briet, a contemporary of Otlet and Wells, highlighted the importance of “altruism” and “zeal in research” among the “signs of the extroverted attitude of the documentalist.”91 The famous eighteenth-century romanticist Samuel Taylor Coleridge concocted a (failed) scheme with friends for Pantisocracy, a commune in the Americas, and Metropolitana, an encyclopedia organized according to the branches of human knowledge rather than alphabetically.92 (Project Xanadu was named in honor of Coleridge’s poem “Kubla Khan.”) And Frederick James Furnivall, a founding personality behind the nineteenth-century Oxford English Dictionary (OED) was known as an agnostic, vegetarian, and Socialist — characteristics for which many thought him foolish.93

オトレとウェルズでみたように、知識の収集に関わる人々の名簿に理想主義者と熱狂者はめずらしくない。オトレとウェルズの同時代者 Suzanne Briet は「ドキュメンタリストの外向的態度における兆候」として「利他性」と「調査への情熱」の重要性を強調した91。18世紀の有名なロマン主義者 Samuel Taylor Coleridge は友人とともに Pantisocracy というアメリカ大陸のコミューンのための(失敗した)枠組みと、Metropolitana というアルファベット順ではなく人類知識の分野別に整理された百科事典を構想した92(プロジェクト Xanadu は Coleridge の「Kubla Khan」という詩をたたえて命名された)。19世紀のオックスフォード英語辞典(OED)を創設した人物のひとりであるフレデリック・ジェームズ・ファーニヴァルは不可知論者で菜食主義者で社会主義者であり、これらの性質により多くの人に馬鹿げた人物と見なされた93

But perhaps the most well-known personality is also one of the most tragic. Simon Winchester’s The Professor and the Madman is the story of the OED’s and one of its most fecund contributors, Dr. William Minor. It is not clear what caused Minor’s paranoid delusions, which eventually drove him to murder an innocent he mistook for the phantasms that tormented him in the night. Yet Winchester argues that Minor’s devotion to the project — Minor submitted 10,000 citation slips to the OED documenting the early usage of terms — was perhaps one of his few solaces: partially replacing his paranoid compulsions with a constructive one that gave Minor some sense of purpose and connection to others.94

しかしおそらくもっともよく知られた人物像はもっとも悲劇的でもある。サイモン・ウィンチェスターの『博士と狂人』はOEDの物語であり、もっとも生産的な投稿者のひとり、ウィリアム・マイナー博士の物語だ。マイナーの妄想の原因はよくわかっていないが、夜に悩まされていた幽霊ととりちがえて無実の人を最終的に殺すことになってしまった。しかし、この事業へのマイナーの献身 - マイナーは語の古い用例を記録した1万の引用文をOEDに送った - は彼のかずすくないなぐさみのひとつだったかもしれない、妄想の衝動の一部を建設的なものにかえることでマイナーは一定の目的と他者へのつながりの感覚をもてたのかもしれない、とウィンチェスターは論じる94

Regardless of whether these men were self-improvers or madmen, their passion and commitment is aptly characterized by Thomas McArthur in his history of reference works:

自己啓発者だったか狂人だったかにかかわらず、彼らの情熱と責任感は Thomas McArthur のレファレンス資料の歴史でみごとに描写されている。

In this they epitomize an important element in the history and psychology of reference materials: the passionate individuals with the peculiar taste for the hard labor of sifting, citing, listing and defining. In such people the taxonomic urge verges on the excessive. Thus, the wife of the Elizabethan lexicographer Thomas Cooper grew to fear that too much compiling would kill her husband. To prevent this, she took and burned the entire manuscript upon which he was working. Somehow, Cooper absorbed the loss — and simply sat down and started all over again.95

ここで彼らはレファレンス資料の歴史と心理学において重要な要素の典型となっている。すなわち、精査し引用し列挙し定義する重労働を奇妙に好む、情熱的な個人である。こうした人のなかでは、分類の衝動が度をこす限界に来る。このため、エリザベス時代の辞書編纂者 Thomas Cooper の妻は編集のしすぎで夫が死ぬのではないかと恐れた。それを防ぐために彼女は、夫が作業していた原稿をすべてうばい燃やしてしまった。どうにかして Cooper は喪失をうけとめ、ただ腰をおろして、最初からやりなおした。95

An early example of such diligence is that of Pliny the Elder’s thirty-seven volume Natural History, one of the earliest European encyclopedias. A respected Roman admiral, statesman, and author, Pliny wrote his work of 20,000 facts with a genteel diligence. His nephew and protégé, Gaius Plinius Cecilius Secundus, better known as Pliny the Younger, wrote to a friend of his uncle’s habit of devoting every spare moment to his studies in which he would take notes while a servant read:

こうした勤勉さの古い例はヨーロッパ最古の百科事典のひとつ、Pliny the Elder の『Natural History』37巻だ。尊敬されたローマ提督、政治家、作家の Pliny は洗練された勤勉さで2万の事実からなる作品を書いた。彼のいとこで弟子の、一般に Pliny the Younger として知られる Gaius Plinius Cecilius Secundus は友人に宛てた手紙で、自分の叔父があらゆる空き時間を研究にささげる習慣があり、そのとき奴隷が読みあげるのを自分が書きとるのだということを書いた。

I remember once his reader having mis-pronounced a word, one of my uncle’s friends at the table made him go back to where the word was and repeat it again; upon which my uncle said to his friend, “Surely you understood it?” Upon his acknowledging that he did, “Why then,” said he, “did you make him go back again? We have lost more than ten lines by this interruption.” Such an economist he was of time!96


Pliny even recorded his uncle’s chastisement for wasting hours in walking about Rome instead of being carried in a litter from within which he could continue his studies.

Pliny の記録によれば、ローマで乗りながら研究をつづけられる litter を使わず歩きまわったことで何時間も無駄にしたと叔父から非難されたことがあったとさえいう。

Wikipedians can be a similarly compulsive and eccentric lot. So much so that some refer to themselves as Wikipediholics with a case of editcountitis, “a serious disease consisting of an unhealthy obsession with the number of edits you have made to Wikipedia.”97 One’s edit count is a sort of coin of the realm. Although it is acknowledged as an arbitrary number (i.e., some might save a Wikipedia page after every tweak, whereas others may edit “offline” and paste it back when done in a single edit), one’s count is a rough approximation of one’s involvement and commitment to the project. In the 2006 Wikimedia Board elections only those with 400 edits could participate; in 2008 the requirement was raised to 600 edits.98 The “Deceased Wikipedians” article states: “Please do not add people to this list who were never an integral part of the community. People in this list should have made at least several hundred edits or be known for substantial contributions to certain articles.”99


But wait, a list of deceased Wikipedians? Indeed. Historically many reference-work contributors driven by the encyclopedic impulse also recognized that their passion would not bring them great rewards or fame. As Samuel Johnson wrote in his preface to A Dictionary of the English Language, “Every other author may aspire to praise; the lexicographer can only hope to escape reproach, and even this negative recompense has been yet granted to very few.”100 So, in this small way, deceased Wikipedians are acknowledged. And the list also gives a flavor of the character of Wikipedia itself. A consequence of subsuming one’s self in a reference work is an appreciation of the personalities and preoccupations of those behind the seemingly staid resource. When A. J. Jacobs undertook the immense task of reading the whole Britannica he concluded that among the best ways to get one’s own entry was to be beheaded, explore the Arctic, get castrated, design a font, or become a mistress to a monarch.101 These were seemingly popular topics among Britannica editors. Similarly, the lists of Wikipedia give a similar sense of the tastes of its contributors. The “List of Lists of Lists” is one article among a dozen that were nominated as the weirdest of Wikipedia pages, giving a skewed but amusing perspective. Other weird articles included: “List Of Fictional Expletives,” “Heavy Metal Umlaut,” “List Of Songs Featuring Cowbells,” “List Of Strange Units Of Measurement,” “Professional Farter,” “List Of Problems Solved By MacGyver,” “Spork,” “Navel Lint,” “Exploding Whale,” and “Twinkies in Popular Culture.”102

いま、死去したウィキペディアンの一覧と書いたが、そうなのだ。歴史上、百科事典的衝動に駆られた多くのレファレンス資料寄稿者は自らの情熱が報酬や名声をもたらさないということを知ってもいた。サミュエル・ジョンソンが A Dictionary of the English Language の序文に書いたように、「他の書物の著者は賞賛を求めてもよい。辞書編纂者は非難から逃れられさえすればよい。この負の報酬すらもほとんど与えられたことがない100。」 だから、このような小さなやりかたで、死去したウィキペディアンは認定される。レファレンス資料に没頭することの帰結のひとつは、この一見退屈な資料の背後にあるみずからの個性と専心とが認められることだ。A. J. Jacobs がブリタニカをすべて読み切るという膨大な仕事にとりくんだとき、自分についての項目をえるのによい方法は、首を落とされるか、北極探検をするか、去勢されるか、書体をデザインするか、君主の妃になるかだと結論づけた101。これらはブリタニカ編集者に人気のある主題のようだ。同様に、ウィキペディアの一覧からは投稿者の趣向が感じられる。ウィキペディアの珍項目のひとつに推薦された十数の項目のひとつである「一覧の一覧の一覧」は、歪んでいるが楽しめる観点を提供する。珍項目にはこのほかに、「罵倒語の一覧」「ヘヴィメタルのウムラウト」「カウベルを主題とする歌の一覧」「変な単位の一覧」「放屁師」「冒険野郎マクガイバーが解決した問題の一覧」「スポーク」「へそ毛玉」「鯨の爆発」「ポップカルチャーに登場するトゥインキー」がある102

Whereas tens of thousands of Wikipedians make a handful of changes, many do much more than this: a 2007 survey reported respondents averaged 8.27 hours per week on the site.103 Some go even beyond this. For example, in 2006 the Canadian Globe and Mail profiled Simon Pulsifer, a Canadian in his mid-twenties at the time, who had edited more than 78,000 articles, two to three thousand of which he created.104 How does such a habit form? Andrew Lih, author and fellow Wikipedia researcher, referred me to the story of “the red dot guy,” Seth Ilys, who tells of his slip into the work as follows:

数回の編集をするウィキペディアンが数万人いる一方で、はるかに多く編集する人も多くいる。2007年のアンケートによれば、回答者は平均して1週間に8.27時間をこのサイトにかけるとされた103。それより長い人もいる。たとえば、2006年に Canadian Globe and Mail は当時20代中盤の男性で7万8000項目を編集し、2、3000の項目を作成した Simon Pulsifer を特集した104。どのようにしてこんな習慣ができるのか? ウィキペディア研究者として同僚でもある著作家 Andrew Lih は「赤い点の男」 Seth Ilys の話を教えてくれた。彼は仕事へののめりこみかたをこのように語る。

Sometime early in 2004, I made a dot-map (example) showing the location of my hometown: Apex, North Carolina. Then I decided, what the heck, since I’ve done that and have the graphics program open, why don’t I make maps for every town in the county. That afternoon, I did about a third of the state and it didn’t make any sense to stop there, so, like Forrest Gump, I just kept on running. Eerily enough, other people started running, too, and before long nearly all of the User:Rambot U.S. census location articles will have maps.105

2004年はじめの頃、自分の町、北カリフォルニア・エイペックスの位置を示した点つき地図を作ったんです。そのとき、これができて画像ソフトを開いている以上、この国の町ぜんぶについて地図を作ってもいいんじゃないかと思いたちました。その日の昼で州の3分の1ほどまででき、そこでやめる理由はありませんでした。それで、フォレスト・ガンプのようにそのままやりつづけたんです。おかしなことに、ほかにもこれをやりはじめた人がいました。User:Rambot の米国国勢調査場所の項目すべてに地図がつくのにそれほど長くかかりませんでした。105

This indicates to me that it is not only the personality types of reference work compilers that are relevant, but also the character of the work itself. There is something about perusing, summarizing, compiling, and indexing. (I prefer to call this an “encyclopedic impulse” instead of McArthur’s “taxonomic urge” to indicate a greater scope beyond classification, but I think we each mean the same thing.) Perhaps it is the focused, piecemeal but cumulative work that grabs some people and makes an “addict” of them. Or, as seen with Paul Otlet and H. G. Wells, the idea of liberating facts from the binding of a book is an enchanting one. And while the eccentricities are humorous and charming for the most part, there is a hint of distress in those who complain of staying up too late, falling behind with work, and suffering sore wrists. In 2006, the Wikipedia policy on blocking users stated, “Self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited.”106 Again, it is somewhat funny that an administrator would block herself so as to stop editing, but it is also potentially sad. In the world of print, such a compulsion has led to theft, hoarding, and even murder as documented in Nicholas Basbanes’s history of the “gentle madness” of book collectors.107

このことは、レファレンス資料編纂者がどういう種類の性格をしているかだけでなく、資料そのものがどういう性質であるかが関係するのだと示しているように思える。精査し、要約し、編集し、索引づけすること(McArthur の「分類学的欲求」にかえて、分類以上の範囲を示すために「百科事典的衝動」と呼ぶのが私の好みだが、どちらも同じことを指していると思う)のなかには何かがある。集中的であり、少しずつしか進まないが累積していく仕事がである点が、ある人々をとらえ「中毒」にしてしまうのかもしれない。あるいは、ポール・オトレとH. G. ウェルズにみられるように、本の縛りから事実を解放することが魅惑的なのかもしれない。こうした奇人ぶりはおおむねほほえましく魅力的なものだが、夜更かしをしすぎ、仕事のすすみが遅く、手首が痛むと訴える人をみると、苦しみの片鱗も見える。2006年、利用者の投稿ブロック措置に関するウィキペディアの方針には「ウィキ休暇または引退を強制するための自己ブロックは厳に禁じられます」106と書かれていた。編集を辞めるためにみずからをブロックする管理者のことを考えるとおもしろみがあるが、悲しみも秘められている。書籍収集家の「上品な狂気」の歴史を Nicholas Basbanes がまとめたなかにあるように、印刷の世界ではこうした衝動は盗み、退蔵、さらには殺人にもつながる107

Critics have taken note of this personality trait too. But whereas I am more likely to view it with amusement, critics tend to be derisive, particularly when the excessive character of the individual joins with the like-minded to become a “MeetUp” or movement. Or, in a less flattering light, Charles Arthur, technology editor at the Guardian, observes Wikipedia, like many online activities, “show[s] all the outward characteristics of a cult.”108 This allegation of religious-like fervor is also seen in Gorman’s reference to Wikipedia supporters as “the faithful.”109 Helprin characterizes the online Visigoths as an army whose vast bulk “may be just a bunch of whacked-out muppets” led by “little professors in glasses” (i.e., free culture proponent Lawrence Lessig).110 And while Lanier prefers a more secular metaphor, he is nonetheless disdainful by referring to Wikipedians as a Maoist collective and Wikipedia as an “online fetish site for foolish collectivism.”111 Andrew Orlowski, a journalist at the Register and one of the earliest critics of Wikipedia, has published a series of articles documenting Wikipedia faults. Presumably referring to the response to his work, Orlowski returns to the religious theme when he notes “criticism from outside the Wikipedia camp has been rebuffed with a ferocious blend of irrationality and vigor that’s almost unprecedented in our experience: if you thought Apple, Amiga, Mozilla or OS/2 fans were er, … passionate, you haven’t met a wiki-fiddler. For them, it’s a religious crusade.”112 And Wikipedia can get such criticism from both sides. Proponents of “aetherometry,” a fringe (or pseudo) science, have also characterized Wikipedia as “a techno-cult of ignorance.” However, in this case, Wikipedia is not being criticized for being overly populist, but for failing to recognize a “dissident science” in favor of the “power-servant peer-review institutions of Big Science”.113

こうした性格的特徴に批判者も目を向ける。私がおもしろがって見るのに対して、批判者は derivisive(未訳)になりがちであり、極端な性格の個人が同志とともに「MeetUp」や運動をなす場合は特にそうだ。あるいは、褒める度合いの少ない言い方では、オンラインの活動の多くと同様にウィキペディアは「カルトの外観的特徴をすべて見せている」とガーディアンの技術分野編集者の Charles Arthur は観察する108。情熱が宗教に似ているとのこの疑義は、ゴーマンがウィキペディア支持者を「信徒」と呼んだことにも見られる109。Helprin はこのオンライン西ゴート族を「小柄な眼鏡の教授たち」(フリー・カルチャー支持者のローレンス・レッシグ)に率いられた軍団で、その大半を「気違いじみた操り人形にすぎないかもしれない一群」が占めると表現した110。Lanier は世俗的なメタファーを好んだが、それでもウィキペディアンを毛沢東思想の集団、ウィキペディアを「馬鹿げた集団主義のオンライン・フェティッシュ・サイト」と呼んで侮蔑した111。Register のジャーナリストでもっとも早い時期からウィキペディアを批判した Andrew Orlowski はウィキペディアの失敗を記録した一連の記事を公表した。おそらく自分の記事への反応へ言及しながら、Orlowski は宗教的な調子にもどりこう述べた。「ウィキペディアの陣営の外から批判を行うと、我々の経験上これまでになかったほどの非合理性と活力の荒々しい混合で反撃されてきた。Apple や Amiga や Mozilla や OS/2 のファンが……情熱的に見えたとすれば、その人は wiki-fiddler をまだ見ていない。彼らにとっては、宗教の十字軍のようなものなのだ」112。そしてこのような批判をウィキペディアは両方から受けることがあある。傍流(あるいは疑似)科学 aetherometry の支持者もウィキペディアを「無知の技術カルト」と表現した。しかしこの場合、ウィキペディアは大衆主義的すぎるといってではなく、「権力におもねってピアレヴューをするビッグサイエンス組織」よりも「反体制派科学」を高く認めなかったといって批判された113

Here, the passions and eccentricities common to compilers throughout the centuries become a feature of the debate between supporters and critics themselves.


Technological Inspiration


Index cards, microfilm, and loose-leaf binders inspired early documentalists to envision greater information access. Furthermore, these technologies had the potential to change how information was thought of and handled. Otlet’s monographic principle, discussed in chapter 2, recognized that with technology one would be able to “detach what the book amalgamates, to reduce all that is complex to its elements and to devote a page [or index card] to each.”114 (The incrementalism frequently alluded to in Wikipedia production is perhaps an instance of this principle in operation.) Similarly, Otlet’s Universal Decimal Classification system would allow one to find these fragments of information easily. These notions of decomposing and rearranging information are again found in current Web 2.0 buzzwords such as “tagging,” “feeds,” and “mash-ups,” or the popular Apple slogan “rip, mix, and burn.”115 And critics object.

索引カード、マイクロフィルム、ルーズリーフバインダーは初期のドキュメンタリストを刺激し、情報アクセス増進のヴィジョンを描かせた。それだけでなく、こうした技術には情報についての考えかたと扱いかたを変える可能性があった。2章で論じたオトレのモノグラフの原理(要検討)では、技術によって人は「本で融合しているものを解体し、複雑なものを要素に分解し、要素それぞれにページ(あるいは索引カード)を割り当てる」ことができると認識された114(ウィキペディア製作においてしばしば暗示される漸進主義はおそらくこの操作原理の一例だろう)。同様に、オトレの国際十進分類法はこうした情報の断片をみつけることを容易にした。情報を解体し再配列するという考えかたはやはり、「タギング」、「フィード」、「マッシュアップ」、また、アップルの「rip, mix, and burn」など現在のウェブ2.0のバズワードにも見られる115。そして批判者はそこに異議を唱える。

As noted, Michael Gorman did not launch his career as a Web 2.0 curmudgeon with a blog entry about Wikipedia; he began with an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times. In his first attack, prompted by the “boogie-woogie Google boys” claim that the perfect search would be like “the mind of God,” Gorman lashes out at Google and its book-scanning project. His concern was not so much about the possible copyright infringement of scanning and indexing books, which was the dominant focus of discussion at the time, but the type of access it provided. Gorman objects to full-text search results that permit one to peruse a few pages on the screen:


The books in great libraries are much more than the sum of their parts. They are designed to be read sequentially and cumulatively, so that the reader gains knowledge in the reading…. The nub of the matter lies in the distinction between information (data, facts, images, quotes and brief texts that can be used out of context) and recorded knowledge (the cumulative exposition found in scholarly and literary texts and in popular nonfiction). When it comes to information, a snippet from Page 142 might be useful. When it comes to recorded knowledge, a snippet from Page 142 must be understood in the light of pages 1 through 141 or the text was not worth writing and publishing in the first place.116


From this initial missive, Gorman’s course of finding fault with anything that smelled of digital populism was set, and would eventually bring him to Wikipedia. (Ironically, he became an exemplar of the successful opinion blogger: shooting from the hip, irreverent, and controversial.)


Yet others counter Gorman’s disdain for the digital. Kevin Kelly, previously encountered in the hive-mind debate, resurrected the spirit of the monographic principle in a May 2006 New York Times Magazine essay about the “liquid version” of books. Instead of index cards and microfilm, the Liquid Library is enabled by the link and the tag, maybe “two of the most important inventions of the last 50 years.”117 Kelly noted that the ancient Library of Alexandria was evidence that the dream of having “all books, all documents, all conceptual works, in all languages” available in one place is an old one; now it might finally be realized. Despite being unaware that the curtain was raised almost a century ago, his reprise is true to Otlet’s vision:

ディジタルを軽蔑するゴーマンに反論する者もいる。集合精神の議論で以前も登場した Kevin Kelly は2006年5月のNew York Timesへの寄稿で本の「流動版」について書き、そのなかでモノグラフの原理の精神を生き返らせた。索引カードとマイクロフィルムのかわりに、「この50年間でもっとも重要な発明かもしれない」リンクとタグによって流動図書館は実現される117。古代アレクサンドリア図書館は「あらゆる言語のあらゆる本、あらゆる文書、あらゆる概念作業」を一カ所納める夢が古いものであることの証拠であり、それがついに実現するかもしれないとKellyは指摘した。100年近く前に幕が上がっていることに気づいていないながらも、彼の反復はオトレのヴィジョンに忠実である:

The real magic will come in the second act, as each word in each book is cross-linked, clustered, cited, extracted, indexed, analyzed, annotated, remixed, reassembled and woven deeper into the culture than ever before. In the new world of books, every bit informs another; every page reads all the other pages…. At the same time, once digitized, books can be unraveled into single pages or be reduced further, into snippets of a page. These snippets will be remixed into reordered books and virtual bookshelves.118


It’s not hard to see Wikipedia as a “reordered book” of reconstituted knowledge. Gorman, probably familiar with some of the antecedents of the liquid library given his reference to “Universal Bibliographic Control” above and skepticism of microfilm below, considers such enthusiasm to be ill founded: “This latest version of Google hype will no doubt join taking personal commuter helicopters to work and carrying the Library of Congress in a briefcase on microfilm as ‘back to the future’ failures, for the simple reason that they were solutions in search of a problem.”119 Conversely, Andrew Keen fears it is a problem in the guise of a solution, claiming the liquid library “is the digital equivalent of tearing out the pages of all the books in the world, shredding them line by line, and pasting them back together in infinite combinations. In his [Kelly’s] view, this results in ‘a web of names and a community of ideas.’ In mine, it foretells the death of culture.”120

知識を再構成する「再整理された本」としてウィキペディアを見るのは難しくない。ゴーマンは上記のように「国際書誌コントロール」に言及しており、下記のようにマイクロフィルムに懐疑的だったことからしておそらく流動図書館の先駆者について知っていたが、彼はそのような情熱は根拠が不十分だと考える:「グーグルについてのハイプの最新版は、個人用通勤ヘリコプターと議会図書館を入れて持ち運べるマイクロフィルムなど『バック・トゥ・ザ・フューチャー』的失敗の仲間に入るだろう。単純に、解を用意してから問いを探しているからだ」119。一方で、Andrew Keen はそれが解のようにみせかけられた問いであることを恐れ、その主張によれば流動図書館は「世界中の本のページを引き裂き、1行1行を切り刻んで、無限の配列にはりつけなおすことのデジタル版だ。彼[Kelly]のみかたではこの結果として『名辞の網と思想のコミュニティ』ができるが、私のみかたでは文化の死が宣言される」120

Yet, Kevin Drum, a blogger and columnist, notes that this dictum of sequentially reading the inviolate continuity of pages isn’t even the case in the “brick-and-mortar library” today: “I browse. I peek into books. I take notes from chapters here and there. A digitized library allows me to do the same thing, but with vastly greater scope and vastly greater focus.”121 As far back as 1903 Paul Otlet felt the slavish dictates of a book’s structure were a thing of the past: “Once one read; today one refers to, checks through, skims. Vita brevis, ars longa! There is too much to read; the times are wrong; the trend is no longer slavishly to follow the author through the maze of a personal plan which he has outlined for himself and which in vain he attempts to impose on those who read him.”122 In fact, scholars have always had varied approaches to reading.123 Francis Bacon (1561–1626) noted that “Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested.”124 A twelfth century manuscript on “study and teaching” recommended that a prudent scholar “hears every one freely, reads everything, and rejects no book, no person, no doctrine,” but “If you cannot read everything, read that which is more useful.”125 And as (un)usual as it may be for anyone to always read a book from start to finish, Gorman’s skepticism also includes an accusation inevitable to discussions about contemporary technology: hype, or “a wonderfully modern manifestation of the triumph of hope and boosterism over reality.”126 Wikipedia critics claim that technology has inspired hyperbole. In response to Seigenthaler’s complaint about fabrications in his biographical article, Orlowski writes the resulting controversy “would have been far more muted if the Wikipedia project didn’t make such grand claims for itself.”127 Nick Carr writes that what “gets my goat about Sanger, Wales, and all the other pixel-eyed apologists for the collective mediocritization of culture” is that they are “all in the business of proclaiming the dawn of a new, more perfect age of human cognition and understanding, made possible by the pulsing optical fibers of the internet.”128 Jaron Lanier, coiner of the term Digital Maoism, concurs: “the problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it’s been elevated to such importance so quickly.”129 Building on Lanier, Gorman speaks to the hype, and many of his other criticisms:

しかし、ブロガーでコラムニストの Kevin Drum の指摘によれば、ページは順番に読まれる不可侵の連続体だとの宣言は今日の「ブリック・アンド・モルタル(実体のある)の図書館」でも事実ではない:「私は本を拾い読みする。チラ見する。別々の章から抜き書きする。ディジタル化された図書館でも同じことができるが、その対象範囲は非常に広くなりその深度も非常に大きくなる」121。本の構造についての従属的な規則は過去の遺物だとオトレが感じたのは1903年にまでさかのぼる:「かつては読まれた。今日では参照され、チェックされ、飛ばし読みされる。学芸は長し、生涯は短し。読むべき本はあまりに多く、時期は逸してしまい、自分のために用意した個人的な計画を著者が読者におしつけようとあがいてもそれに従属的にしたがう時勢ではない」122。実際、学者は読書にさまざまなやりかたでとりくんでいた123。フランシス・ベーコン(1561年-1626年)は「ある本は味わわれ、別の本は飲まれ、少数の本は噛みくだかれ消化される」と指摘した124。「研究と教育」についての12世紀の写本は、分別ある学者は「すべてのものを自由に聞き、すべてを読み、どの本もどの人もどの教義も拒絶しない」ものだが「すべてを読むことができないならば、有用なものを読むべきだ」と推奨する125。人はいつも本を最初から最後まで読むことが普通であってもそうでなくても、ゴーマンの懐疑論には現代の技術についての議論で避けられない告発が含まれる:ハイプ、すなわち「現実を希望と熱狂的な宣伝が打ち破ることのすばらしく近代的な実体化」である126。ウィキペディア批判者は技術が誇張を刺激してきたと主張する。シーゲンソーラーが自らの伝記項目について虚偽があるとの申し立てをしたのに応じて、その結果としての論争は「ウィキペディアが自らについてあのように大袈裟な主張をしていなければ、はるかに静かなものだっただろう」とOrlowski は述べた127。Nick Carr は、「サンガー、ウェールズ、その他文化の集合的凡庸化を擁護するピクセルの眼をした人たちすべてについていらだたせられる」のは彼らが「みなインターネットの光ファイバーのまたたきによって実現された、人類の認知と理解がより完全になる新時代の幕開けを宣言」しているからだと述べた128。ディジタル毛沢東思想という用語をつくった Jaron Lanier はこう同意する。「問題は、ウィキペディアがいかに認知され使用されることになったか、いかにはやくこれほどの重要性にまで浮上してきたかということだ」129。Lanier にもとづいてゴーマンはハイプ、そして彼への他の批判についてこう述べる。

Digital Maoism is an unholy brew made up of the digital utopianism that hailed the Internet as the second coming of Haight-Ashbury — everyone’s tripping and it’s all free; pop sociology derived from misreading books such as James Surowiecki’s 2004 The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations; a desire to avoid individual responsibility; anti-intellectualism — the common disdain for pointy headed professors; and the corporatist “team” mentality that infests much modern management theory.130


Helprin likens Wikipedia to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia wherein the Kremlin sent out doctored photographs and updated pages to rewrite history: “Revision as used by the Soviets was a tool to disorient and disempower the plasticized masses. Revision in the wikis is an inescapable attribute that eliminates the fixedness of fact. Both the Soviets and the wiki builders imagined and imagine themselves as attempting to reach the truth.”131 Likewise, Carr continues his criticism by noting: “Whatever happens between Wikipedia and Citizendium, here’s what Wales and Sanger cannot be forgiven for: They have taken the encyclopedia out of the high school library, where it belongs, and turned it into some kind of totem of ‘human knowledge.’ Who the hell goes to an encyclopedia looking for ‘truth,’ anyway?”132

Helprin はクレムリンが修正写真とページの更新により歴史を上書きした Great Soviet Encyclopedia にウィキペディアをなぞらえた。「ソヴィエトが使った意味での改版は、影響されやすい群集を惑わせ無力化するための道具だった。ウィキにおける改版は、事実の固定性をなくす不可避の特徴だ。ソヴィエトもウィキ構築者も自分たちは真実に到達しようとしていると信じていたし信じている」131。Carr も同様に批判をつづけこう指摘する。「ウィキペディアと Citizendium のあいだに何が起ころうと、ウェールズとサンガーが許されざる理由はこうだ。彼らは百科事典を本来あるべき場所だった高校の図書室からもちだし、”人類知識”のトーテム像のようなものにしてしまった。いったい誰が「真実」をもとめて百科事典をみにいくだろうか。」132

Of course, one must ask to what extent has Wikipedia made “such grand claims for itself”? As I belabored in my discussions about NPOV, Wikipedia has few, if any, pretensions to “truth.” As is stressed in the “Verifiability” policy, “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.”133 Unlike the launching of the Third, there was no ill-conceived press release claiming Wikipedia to be truth incarnate. Furthermore, encyclopedias gained their present shine of truth when they were first sold to schools in the middle of the twentieth century. Also, we must remember Wikipedia was not started with the intention of creating a Maoistic hive intelligence. Rather, Nupedia’s goal was to produce an encyclopedia that could be available to — not produced by — anyone. When the experiment of allowing anyone to edit on a complementary wiki succeeded beyond its founders’ expectations, and Wikipedia was born, two things happened. First, journalists, and, later, popular-press authors, seized upon its success as part of a larger theory about technology-related change. For example, Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams reference the wiki phenomenon in the title of their book Wikinomics;134 they use a brief account of Wikipedia to launch a much larger case of how businesses should learn from and adapt their strategies to new media and peer collaboration. In Infotopia Cass Sunstein engages the Wikipedia phenomenon more directly, and identifies some strengths of this type of group decision making and knowledge production, but also illuminates possible faults.135 Using Wikipedia as a metaphor has become so popular that Jeremy Wagstaff notes that comparing something to Wikipedia is “The New Cliche”: “You know something has arrived when it’s used to describe a phenomenon. Or what people hope will be a phenomenon.”136 Second, as seen earlier, Wikipedians themselves sought to understand how the experiment turned out so well and engaged in discussions about whether those larger theories applied.

もちろん、ウィキペディアがどの程度「自らについてあのように大袈裟な主張」をしたかが問題だ。NPOVについての議論で私が繰り返したように、ウィキペディアに「真実」の自負はほとんど、あるいはまったくない。「検証可能性」の方針で強調されるように、「ウィキペディア収録へのしきい値は検証可能性であり、真実性ではありません。ウィキペディアに追加された内容が信頼できる情報源ですでに公刊されていると読者が確認できるかどうかであり、私たちがその内容を真実だと思うかどうかではありません。」133 ウェブスター第三版とはちがって、ウィキペディアが真実の化身だと主張するような準備不足のプレスリリースはなかった。さらに、20世紀のなかば学校に売られたときに、百科事典は現在の真実の輝きを得た。また、毛沢東的集合精神をつくろうとしてウィキペディアがはじまったのではないことも忘れてはならない。ニューペディアの目標はあらゆる人が(製作できるではなく)受け取れる百科事典を製作することだった。補助用ウィキで誰でも編集できるようにする実験が創設者の期待を超えて成功しウィキペディアがうまれたとき、ふたつのことが起こった。第一に、ジャーナリスト、後に大衆紙の記者が、技術に関連するより大きな変化の理論の一部としてその成功にくいついた。たとえば、Don Tapscott と Anthony Williams は『ウィキノミクス』という著書の題名でウィキ現象を引用する134。ウィキペディアに簡単に触れた上で、ニューメディアとピアコラボレーションから企業がまなびそれらに戦略をあわせていくべきだというもっと大きな議論を彼らは展開する。Infotopia で Cas Sunstein はウィキペディア現象にもっと直接とりくみ、この種の集団的意思決定と知識生産の利点をいくつか確認し、また欠点とおもわれるものを示唆している135。Jeremy Wagstaff の指摘によれば、ウィキペディアを暗喩的に使うことは非常に人気があり、ウィキペディアと何かを比べるのは「新しいクリシェ」だという。「あるものがある社会現象、あるいは社会現象になってほしいと思っているものを表現するのに使われるとき、それがやってきたことが分かる。」136 第二に、すでにみたように、ウィキペディアン自身がこの実験がこれほどうまくいったのはなぜかを理解しようとし、より大きな理論が適用できるかどうかの議論に参加した。

However, at the launch of Wikipedia, Ward Cunningham, Larry Sanger, and Jimmy Wales all expressed some skepticism regarding its success as an encyclopedia, a conversation that continued among Wikipedia supporters until at least 2005.137 And as evidence of early modesty, consider the following message from Sanger at the start of Wikipedia:


Suppose that, as is perfectly possible, Wikipedia continues producing articles at a rate of 1,000 per month. In seven years, it would have 84,000 articles. This is entirely possible; Everything2, which uses wiki-like software, reached 1,000,000 “nodes” recently.138

まったく可能なことだが、たとえばウィキペディアが毎月1000項目のペースで項目を生産しつづけたとしよう。7年で8万4000項目になる。これはまったく不可能ではない。ウィキ的なソフトウェアを使っている Everything2 は最近100万ノードを達成した。138

Some thought this was a stretch. In 2002, online journalist Peter Jacso included Wikipedia in his “picks and pan” column: he “panned” Wikipedia by likening it to a prank, joke, or an “outlet for those who pine to be a member in some community.” Jacso dismissed Wikipedia’s goal of producing 100,000 articles with the comment: “That’s ambition,” as this “tall order” was twice the number of articles in the sixth edition of the Columbia Encyclopedia.139 Yet, in September 2007, shy of its seven-year anniversary, the English Wikipedia had two million articles (over twenty times Sanger’s estimate), proving that making predictions about Wikipedia is definitely a hazard — prompting betting pools on when various million-article landmarks will be reached.140

これは言いすぎだと思う人もいた。2002年にオンラインジャーナリスト Peter Jasco はコラム「picks and pan」でウィキペディアをとりあげた。彼はウィキペディアをpan(けなす)し、いたずら、冗談、「どこかのコミュニティに属したがっている人のはけぐち」になぞらえた。Jasco は10万項目を生産するというウィキペディアの目標を一笑に付しこうコメントした。「野心としてはけっこう」だがこの「無理難題」はコロンビア百科事典6版の2倍にあたる139。しかし、2007年9月、7周年の前に英語版ウィキペディアは200万項目(サンガーの推定の20倍)になり、ウィキペディアについて予言するのは危険だということがたしかになり、100万単位の節目がいつ達成されるかの賭けがはじまった140

Granting that technology pundits make exaggerated claims, but not always to the extent that critics allege, prominent Wikipedians tend to be more moderate in their claims: in response to the Seigenthaler incident in 2005 Wales cautioned that while they wanted to rival Britannica in quantity and quality, that goal had not yet been achieved and that Wikipedia was “a work in progress.”141 The Wikipedia article “What It Is Not” disclaims many of the labels commonly attributed to it, including that it is “not an anarchy.”142 And of the ten things you might “not know about Wikipedia”:


We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this. We work hard to keep the ratio of the greatest to the worst as high as possible, of course, and to find helpful ways to tell you in what state an article currently is. Even at its best, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with all the limitations that entails. It is not a primary source. We ask you not to criticize Wikipedia indiscriminately for its content model but to use it with an informed understanding of what it is and what it isn’t. Also, as some articles may contain errors, please do not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.143


While pundits might seize upon Wikipedia as an example of their argument of dramatic change, most Wikipedia supporters tend to express more surprise than hyped-up assuredness. In response to the Seigenthaler incident in 2005, the British newspaper the Guardian characterized Wikipedia as “one of the wonders of the internet”:


In theory it was a recipe for disaster, but for most of the time it worked remarkably well, reflecting the essential goodness of human nature in a supposedly cynical world and fulfilling a latent desire for people all over the world to cooperate with each other without payment. The wikipedia is now a standard source of reference for millions of people including school children doing their homework and post-graduates doing research. Inevitably, in an experiment on this scale lots of entries have turned out to be wrong, mostly without mal-intent…. Those who think its entries should be taken with a pinch of salt should never forget that there is still plenty of gold dust there.144


Economist and author John Quiggin notes: “Still, as Bismarck is supposed to have said ‘If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made.’ The process by which Wikipedia entries are produced is, in many cases, far from edifying: the marvel, as with democracies and markets, is that the outcomes are as good as they are.”145 Bill Thompson, BBC digital culture critic, wrote “Wikipedia is flawed in the way Ely Cathedral is flawed, imperfect in the way a person you love is imperfect, and filled with conflict and disagreement in the way a good conference or an effective parliament is filled with argument”.146 The same sentiment carried through in many of the responses to Jaron Lanier’s “Digital Maoism” article. Yochai Benkler replies, “Wikipedia captures the imagination not because it is so perfect, but because it is reasonably good in many cases: a proposition that would have been thought preposterous a mere half-decade ago.”147 Science fiction author and prominent blogger Cory Doctorow writes: “Wikipedia isn’t great because it’s like the Britannica. The Britannica is great at being authoritative, edited, expensive, and monolithic. Wikipedia is great at being free, brawling, universal, and instantaneous.”148 Kevin Kelly, proponent of the hive mind and liquid library, responds that Wikipedia surprises us because it takes “us much further than seems possible…. because it is something that is impossible in theory, and only possible in practice.”149

経済学者で作家の John Quiggin が指摘するように「それでも、ビスマルクが言ったとされるように『法律とソーセージが好きならば、それが作られる様子を見るべきではない』。ウィキペディア項目が作られる過程は多くの場合、啓発とはほどとおい。民主主義や市場がそうであるように、驚異的なのは成果物があれほどよいことだ」145。BBCのディジタルカルチャー批評家 Bill Thompson はこう書いた。「ウィキペディアの欠点はイーリー大聖堂の欠点と同じだ。愛する人が不完全であるのと同じようにそれは不完全だ。よい会議や機能する議会が論争で満ちているのと同じようにそれは衝突と不一致で満ちている」146。Jaron Lanier の記事「ディジタル毛沢東思想」への反応でも同様の意見がつづいている。Yochai Benkler のこう返答する。「ウィキペディアが想像力をひきつけるのは、完全だからではなく多くの場合それなりによいからだ。このようなことはわずか50年前には考えられなかった」147。サイエンスフィクション作家で著名なブロガーの Cory Doctorow はこう書く。「ウィキペディアがすばらしいのはブリタニカのようだからではない。ブリタニカは権威性があり編集の手が入り高価で一体的なものとして優れている。ウィキペディアは自由で騒々しく普遍的で即時的なものとして優れている」148。集合精神と流動図書館の信奉者 Kevin Kelly はウィキペディアが我々を「思わぬほど遠くまで」つれていってくれること、「理論のうえでは不可能であり実際にしか可能ではないということ」に驚かされる、と応じる149

And Wikipedia defenders are not willing to cede the quality ground altogether. On December 14, 2005, the prestigious science journal Nature reported the findings of a commissioned study in which subject experts reviewed forty-two articles in Wikipedia and Britannica; it concluded “the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.”150 Of course, this catered to the interests of Nature readers and a topical strength of Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects. Three months later, in March 2006, Britannica boldly objected to the methodology and conclusions of the Nature study in a press release and large ads in the New York Times and the London Times. Interestingly, by this time, Wikipedia had already fixed all errors identified in the study — in fact they were corrected within a month and three days of learning of the specific errors.151


Yet the critics don’t accept even this more moderated appreciation of Wikipedia as being imperfect but surprisingly good. Orlowski writes such sentiments are akin to saying: “Yes it’s garbage, but it’s delivered so much faster!”152 In a widely read article on Wikipedia for The New Yorker, Stacy Schiff reported Robert McHenry, former editor in chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica, as saying “We can get the wrong answer to a question quicker than our fathers and mothers could find a pencil.”153 Carr is willing to concede a little more, but on balance still finds Wikipedia lacking:

しかし不完全だが驚くほどによいというこの控えめにされた賞賛をも批判者は受け入れない。Orlowski によればそのような意見は「たしかにゴミだが速く届くから」と述べるのに近い152。ニューヨーカー誌の広く読まれたウィキペディアに関する記事で Starcy Schiff はブリタニカ百科事典前編集長 Robert McHenry の発言としてこう報じた。「疑問への間違った答えを得るのには父親や母親が鉛筆を探すほどの時間もかからない」153。Carr はもう少し譲歩しようとするが、公平に見てやはりウィキペディアには欠点があるとする。

In theory, Wikipedia is a beautiful thing — it has to be a beautiful thing if the Web is leading us to a higher consciousness. In reality, though, Wikipedia isn’t very good at all. Certainly, it’s useful — I regularly consult it to get a quick gloss on a subject. But at a factual level it’s unreliable, and the writing is often appalling. I wouldn’t depend on it as a source, and I certainly wouldn’t recommend it to a student writing a research paper.154


Furthermore, whereas Wikipedia supporters see “imperfect” as an opportunity to continue moving forward, critics view user-generated content as positively harmful: that “Misinformation has a negative value,” or that “what is free is actually costing us a fortune.”155 (Perhaps this is a classical case of perceiving a glass to be either half empty or half full.) Or, much like the enormously popular parody of an inspirational poster that declared “Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten,” Keen concludes: “Every visit to Wikipedia’s free information hive means one less customer for professionally researched and edited encyclopedia such as Britannica.”156 And Carr fears that using the Internet to pursue (suspect) knowledge is actually “making us stupid.”157

さらに、ウィキペディア支持者らは「不完全」さを前にすすめる機会としてみるが、批判者らは「誤情報には負の価値がある」、「無料のものは実際には大きな出費をさせられる」155としてユーザー生成型コンテンツを積極的に害をなすものとしてみる(おそらくこれはグラスを半分飲みほされたものとしてみるか半分満たされたものとしてみるかという古典的な例だろう)。あるいは、示唆的なポスターのパロディで非常に人気のでた「あなたが自慰をするたびに神は子猫を1匹殺す」という宣言に似せて、「人がウィキペディアの無料情報の巣に接するたび、ブリタニカのような専門的に調査され編集された百科事典の顧客が1人減る」156。Carr は(怪しい)知識を求めてインターネットを利用することは実際には「我々を愚かにする」のではないかとも恐れる157

Although technology can inspire, it can cause others to despair. For some, like Gorman’s dismissal of the Library of Congress in a briefcase, the technology may inspire nothing but a “back to the future” failure. For others, like Keen, the proclaimed implications of the technology are real. Yet, whereas Anderson loves Rhapsody, the online music service, Keen has lost Tower Records, the defunct brick-and-mortar store. Here we can observe a generality of history: change serves some better than others. On this point these arguments seem like those of any generational gap, as Gorman points out:

技術は刺激をもたらすことがあるが、ある人には絶望をもたらすこともある。鞄に入る議会図書館を否定したゴーマンのような人たちには、技術は「バック・トゥ・ザ・フューチャー」の失敗以外のなにももたらさないかもしれない。Keen のような別の人たちには、技術がもたらすと主張されるものは現実的だ。しかし、Anderson がオンライン音楽サービス Rhapsody を好む一方で、Keen はブリック・アンド・モルタル(実体のある)のタワー・レコードの店を失った。歴史の一般性がここで観察できる。変化はある人にとっては別の人にとってよりよい恩恵となるのである。この点でこういった議論はあらゆる世代間の隔絶と似ている。ゴーマンはこう指摘する。

Perceived generational differences are another obfuscating factor in this discussion. The argument is that scholarship based on individual expertise resulting in authoritative statements is somehow passé and that today’s younger people think and act differently and prefer collective to individual sources because of their immersion in a digital culture. This is both a trivial argument (as if scholarship and truth were matters of preference akin to liking the Beatles better than Nelly) and one that is demeaning to younger people (as if their minds were hopelessly blurred by their interaction with digital resources and entertainments).158

世代間の差とされるものがこの議論を分かりにくくしているもうひとつの要素だ。その議論によれば、個人の専門性にもとづく学問は権威主義的な主張をうんでいて一種の時代遅れであるといい、若者の考えと行動は変わってきておりディジタル文化に慣れた彼らは個人の情報源よりも集団の情報源を好むという。これは(あたかも学問と真実は、Nelly よりビートルズがよいという好みの問題であるというかのごとき)とるにたりない議論であり、(あたかもディジタル資料と娯楽によって彼らの精神が絶望的に鈍っているというかのような)若者を侮辱する議論である。158

None-the-less, Gorman manages to sound like an old man shaking his fist when he complains that “The fact is that today’s young, as do the young in every age, need to learn from those who are older and wiser.”159 Clay Shirky summarizes Gorman’s position from the perspective of the new generation: “according to Gorman, the shift to digital and network reproduction of information will fail unless it recapitulates the institutions and habits that have grown up around print.”160 Scott McLemee, a columnist at Inside Higher Ed, more amusingly notes: “The tone of Gorman’s remedial lecture implies that educators now devote the better part of their day to teaching students to shove pencils up their nose while Googling for pornography. I do not believe this to be the case. (It would be bad, of course, if it were.)”161

しかし、次のように申し立てるところでゴーマンは拳をふるわせる老人のように聞こえてしまう。「現代の若者は、どんな時代の若者とも同じく、年長の、より賢い人々から学ばなければならない」159。クレイ・シャーキーは新世代の視点からゴーマンの立場をこう要約する。「ゴーマンによれば、印刷に周辺に成立した精度と慣習を再現しないかぎりディジタルとネットワークによる情報の再生産への移行は失敗する」160。Inside Hider Ed のコラムニスト Scott McLemee は、もっとおもしろくこう指摘する。「ゴーマンの補修授業の論調では、現代の教育者が時間の大半を使って生徒に鉛筆を鼻につめながらポルノをググることを教えているかのように聞こえる。そんなことは起こっていないと思う。(もちろん起こっていれば、よくないことだが)」161

Finally, some of this conflict might be characterized as “much ado about nothing.” Both Webster’s Third and Wikipedia have attracted a fair amount of punditry: reference works are claimed as proxies and hostages in larger battles, and I suspect some of the combatants argue for little other than their own self-aggrandizement. When reading generational polemics I remind myself of Douglas Adams’s humorous observation that everything that existed when you were born is considered normal and you should try to make a career out of anything before your thirtieth birthday as it is thought to be “incredibly exciting and creative.” Of course, anything after that is “against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilisation as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really.” Even so, with every generation we undergo a new round of “huffing and puffing”.162 This is because “old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place,” as Clay Shirky notes in a blog entry about the collapse of print journalism. Or, as hypothesized by Steve Weber in his study of open source, the stridency of critics arises because it is easier to see “what is going away than what is struggling to be born” but that there can be a positive side to “creative destruction” if we are sufficiently patient.163

結局、この衝突の一部は「空騒ぎ」と表現できるかもしれない。ウェブスター第3版もウィキペディアも学者の論をかなりひきよせた。レファレンス資料はより大きな戦いのなかで代理人や人質として主張されており、みずからを誇示するため以外の理由なしに論じている参加者もいるのではないかと思う。世代に関する論争を読むと、自分がうまれたときからあったものならなんでも普通にみえるし、30歳までにあったものならなんでも「ものすごく刺激的で創造的にみえる」から仕事にしてみればよいという、ダグラス・アダムズのユーモアある観察をおもいだす。もちろん、「それより後のものはなんでもこうした自然の秩序に反していて、我々の知るところの文明の終わりの始まりなのだが、10年もすると実は問題ないことが少しずつわかってくる」。それでも、世代がかわるたびに我々は「huffing and puffing」(未訳)をくりかえす162。クレイ・シャーキーがブログで印刷ジャーナリズムの崩壊について指摘したところによれば、これは「新しいものに置き換わるまえに古いものが壊れる」からである。あるいは、Steve Weber がオープンソースの研究で述べた仮説では、耳障りな批判者が現れるのは「なくなりつつあるもののほうが、うまれようともがいているものよりも」みえやすいからだが、十分辛抱すれば「創造的破壊」には肯定的な側面もある163



Reference works can prompt and embody currents of social unease. As seen in Morton’s history of Webster’s Third, much of the controversy associated with its publication was about something other than the merits of that particular dictionary. I generalize the argument by briefly looking to the past for how reference works have been involved in a larger conservative versus progressive tension, and by asking how Wikipedia might be entangled in a similar debate today.

レファレンス資料は社会不安のながれをひきおこし実体化することがある。Morton によるウェブスター第3版の歴史でみられるように、その刊行にまつわる論争の大半は、辞書自体の得失以外についてのなにかだ。保守派と進歩派のあいだのより大きな緊張にレファレンス資料が過去どうまきこまれてきたかを簡単にみることで私はこの議論を一般化した。

On this point, the conversation about Wikipedia can be understood with respect to a handful of themes. Clearly, the way in which content is produced has changed. It is not surprising that people question whether this type of collaboration is good, bad, or could be improved upon in any case. Furthermore, Wikipedia is an (imperfect) realization of a long-pursued vision for a universal encyclopedia. This vision is challenged by critics as an unlikely utopia, or a dangerous dystopia. Also, how to make sense of the sometimes rancorous character of the discussion? We might understand the doggedness of some of the supporters and critics in light of an encyclopedic impulse and the longer history of bibliophilic passion. Central to the discussion is also a long-debated question about technology and change: although technology may inspire some toward a particular end, it might also disgust others and effect changes that are not welcome. Ultimately, I find a reasoned middle ground to be most compelling. In a keynote speech before the Association of Research Libraries, Hunter R. Rawlings III, classics scholar and former president of Cornell, noted that we should not confuse the useful measures of relevance and popularity in finding information with the means to validate it; we must continue to develop means of “critical judgment.”164 Wikipedia can serve not only as a reference work, but also, at the same time, as a study of how knowledge is constructed and contested.

この点で、ウィキペディアについての対話はいくつかの主題にてらして理解できる。明らかに、コンテンツの作り方はかわった。このような種類の共同作業がよいか、わるいか、なんらかの形で改善できるかという疑問がでるのは驚くべきことではない。さらに、ウィキディアは古くから望まれてきた普遍的百科事典の(不完全な)体現である。このヴィジョンはありそうにないユートピア、あるいは危険なディストピアとして批判された。また、ときに恨みのこもった面のある議論はどう理解すればよいのか? 百科事典の衝動と書誌の情熱のながい歴史をふまえれば、支持者と批判者が頑固になりうることが理解できるかもしれない。技術と変化についての古くから論じられた疑問も議論の中心にある。技術はある人たちをある方向に刺激するかもしれないが、他の人たちの反感をかったり歓迎できない変化に影響したりするかもしれない。究極的には、合理的な中道に私はひきつけられる。Association of Research Libraries の基調講演で古典学者でコーネル大学前学長の Hunter R. Rawlings III は、情報をみつける際に便利な関連性と人気度の指標を、それを検証する手段と混同すべきではなく、我々は「批判的判断」の手段をそだてつづけるべきであると指摘した164。ウィキペディアはレファレンス資料としてだけではなく、同時に、知識が築かれ争われるありかたの調査としても働く。

  1. *Michael Gorman, “Jabberwiki: the Educational Response, Part II,” Britannica Blog: Web 2.0 Forum, June 26, 2007, (visited on June 27, 2007), 5. 2

  2. *Wikipedia, “User:Raul654/Raul’s Laws (oldid=301373968)”*. 2

  3. *Headrick, When Information Came of Age, 145. 2

  4. *Henry Hitchens, Defining the World: the Extraordinary Story of Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary (New York: Farrar, Straus, / Giroux, 2005), 73. 2

  5. *

    For Johnson’s original pretense of “fixing” English, see Samuel Johnson, “The Plan of an English Dictionary,” in Oxford Works, ed. Jack Lynch (1747–1825, February 2, 2007), (visited on December 4, 2007). Johnson’s subsequent apology can be seen in Samuel Johnson, “Preface,” in A Dictionary of the English Language, ed. Jack Lynch (1755; London, September 2006), Line 84, (accessed December 4, 2007). To review the claims of other lexicographers (i.e., Richard Trench, Ephraim Chambers, and Noah Webster) that their task as was to be descriptive historians rather than judgmental critics, see Morton, The Story of Webster’s Third, 7; Hitchens, Defining the World, 151; Noah Webster, “To John Pickering, December, 1816,” in Letters of Noah Webster, ed. Harry R. Warfel (New York: Library Publishers, 1953), 357. 2

  6. *David Foster Wallace, “Tense Present: Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage,” Harper’s Magazine (April 2001), (visited on March 4, 2008). 2

  7. *Wikimedia, “Conflicting Wikipedia Philosophies”. 2

  8. *Stockwell, A History of Information Storage and Retrieval, 133-134; also, see Einbinder, The Myth of the Britannica, 323-325.

  9. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia,” Wikipedia, October 11, 2008, (visited on November 14, 2008). 2

  10. *Anonymous et al., “How to Writer’s Guide,” wikiHow, August 21, 2007,’s-Guide (visited on August 21, 2007). 2

  11. *Morton, The Story of Webster’s Third. 2

  12. *Wilson Follett, “Sabotage in Springfield: Webster’s Third Edition,” The Atlantic Monthly (January 1962): 74. 2

  13. *Jacques Barzun, “The Scholar Cornered: What Is the Dictionary?,” The American Scholar (Spring 1963): 176. 2

  14. *Sheridan Baker, “The Error of Ain’t,” College English 26, number 2 (November 1964): 91–104, (visited on May 23, 2008); Virginia McDavid, “More on Ain’t,” College English 26, number 2 (November 1964): 104–105, (visited on May 23, 2008). 2

  15. *Morton, The Story of Webster’s Third, 116, 168, 162. 2

  16. *Conservapedia, “Main Page,” Conservapedia, July 3, 2008, (visited on October 24, 2008). 2

  17. *Conservapedia, “Examples of Bias in Wikipedia,” Conservapedia, June 2, 2009, (visited on June 15, 2009). 2

  18. *Lester Haines, “Conservapedia Too Pinko? Try Metapedia,” The Register, July 23, 2007, (accessed October 24, 2008). 2

  19. *Metapedia, “Mission Statement,” Metapedia, September 2, 2008, (visited on October 24, 2008). 2

  20. *McArthur, Worlds of Reference, 67. 2

  21. *Johann Heinrich Zedler, *Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschafften und Künste*, welche bisshero durch menschlichen Verstand und Witz erfunded und verbessert warden, 64 vols. (Halle and Leipzig: Zedler, 1732-1750); 4-volume supplement (Leipzig: Zedler, 1751-1754), quoted in Headrick, When Information Came of Age, 155. 2

  22. *Diderot, “The Encyclopedia”, 295. 2

  23. *George Gleig, in the preface to the supplement of the third edition as quoted in Britannica, “Encyclopaedia,” in Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 15 (1911), 943, (visited on November 30, 2007). 2

  24. *Jimmy Wales, quoting Charles Van Doren, in Schiff, “Know It All”, 3. 2

  25. *Wikipedia, “Charles Van Doren,” Wikipedia, September 19, 2007, (visited on September 21, 2007). 2

  26. *Kogan, The Great EB. 2

  27. *Einbinder, The Myth of the Britannica. 2

  28. *Thaddeus K. Oglesby, Some Truths of History: a Vindication of the South against the Encyclopedia Britannica and Other Maligners (Atlanta: The Byrd Printing Company, 1903), (visited on September 28, 2007). 2

  29. *Thomas, A Position to Command Respect; Britannica, “Ku Klux Klan,” in Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 17 (1911), 5, (visited on November 30, 2007); Britannica, “Lynch Law,” in Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 15 (1911), 5, (visited on November 30, 2007). 2

  30. *Michael McCarthy, “It’s Not True about Caligula’s Horse; Britannica Checked — Dogged Researchers Answer Some Remarkable Queries,” Wall Street Journal (April 22, 1999): A1. 2

  31. *Joseph McCabe, The Lies and Fallacies of the Encyclopaedia Britannica: How Powerful and Shameless Clerical Forces Castrated a Famous Work of Reference (Girard, KA: Haldeman-Julius Publications, 1947), (visited on April 7, 2006). 2

  32. *Joseph McCabe, The Columbia Encyclopedia’s Crimes against the Truth (Girard, KA: Haldeman-Julius Publications, 1951), (visited on April 7, 2006). 2

  33. *Wikipedia, “WikiScanner,” Wikipedia, September 6, 2007, (visited on September 7, 2007). 2

  34. *Robert Darnton, The Business of Enlightenment: a Publishing History of the Encyclopédie (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1979), 9-13. 2

  35. *Stockwell, A History of Information Storage and Retrieval, 90. 2

  36. *Ibidem, 89. 2

  37. *Cynthia Koepp, “Making Money: Artisans and Entrepreneurs and Diderot’s Encyclope’Die,” in Using the Encyclopédie, ed. Julie Candler Hayes Daniel Brewer (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2002), 138. 2

  38. *Einbinder, The Myth of the Britannica, 3. 2

  39. *Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, 297. 2

  40. *Wikipedia, “Criticism of Wikipedia,” Wikipedia, March 27, 2007, (visited on March 27, 2007). 2

  41. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Replies to Common Objections,” Wikipedia, September 20, 2007, (accessed September 27, 2007). 2

  42. *Tim O’Reilly, “Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again,” December 10, 2006, (accessed August 28, 2007); see Paul Graham, “Web 2.0,” November 2005, (visited on September 21, 2007); Alex Krupp, “The Four Webs: Web 2.0, Digital Identity, and the Future of Human Interaction,” 2006, (visited on September 21, 2007). 2

  43. *Robert McHenry, “Web 2.0: Hope or Hype?,” Britannica Blog: Web 2.0 Forum, June 25, 2007, (visited on June 27, 2007). 2

  44. *Shirky, Here Comes Everybody. 2

  45. *My understanding is a variation of and response to the “One Smart Guy,” “One Best Way,” and “One for All” periodization offered by Pink, “The Book Stops Here”. 2

  46. *Joseph Reagle, Four Short Stories about the Reference Work, 2005; Marc Elliott, “Stigmergic Collaboration: the Evolution of Group Work,” M/C Journal 9, number 2 (May 2006), (visited on June 5, 2006). 2

  47. *Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: the New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World, Reprint edition (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group, 1995), (visited on April 13, 2004). 2

  48. *Howard Rheingold, Smart Mobs (Cambridge, MA: Perseuss Publishing, 2002). 2

  49. *James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds (New York: Doubleday, 2004). 2

  50. *Michael Gorman, “Jabberwiki: the Educational Response, Part I,” Britannica Blog: Web 2.0 Forum, June 25, 2007, (visited on June 27, 2007), 4. 2

  51. *Michael Gorman, “Web 2.0: the Sleep of Reason, Part II,” June 12, 2007, (accessed June 15, 2007). 2

  52. *Jaron Lanier, “Digital Maoism: the Hazards of the New Online Collectivism”, Edge, May 30, 2006, (accessed June 7, 2006). 2

  53. *Andrew Keen, The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 4. 2

  54. *Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism: a Writer’s Manifesto (Harper, April 2009), 41, 18. 2

  55. *Lawrence Lessig, “The Solipsist and the Internet (a Review of Helprin’s Digital Barbarism),” The Huffington Post, June 15, 2009, (visited on June 15, 2009). 2

  56. *Alex Krupp, “Wikipedia, Emergence, and The Wisdom of Crowds,” wikipedia-l, May 2, 2005, (visited on May 2, 2005). 2

  57. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Wikipedia, Emergence, and The Wisdom of Crowds”, wikipedia-l, May 2, 2005, (visited on May 2, 2005). 2

  58. *Sj, “Re: Wikipedia, Emergence, and The Wisdom of Crowds,” wikipedia-l, May 3, 2005, (visited on May 3, 2005). 2

  59. *Joseph Reagle, “Re: Wikipedia, Emergence, and The Wisdom of Crowds”, wikipedia-l, May 2, 2005, (visited on May 2, 2005). 2

  60. *Benkler, “Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm”; Sproull, “Online Communities”. 2

  61. *Cunningham, “Keynote”. 2

  62. *Chris Anderson, The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less for More (New York: Hyperion, 2006), (visited on September 13, 2007); Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (New York: Portfolio, 2006). 2

  63. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Wikipedia, Emergence, and The Wisdom of Crowds”, wikipedia-l, May 3, 2005, (accessed May 3, 2005). 2

  64. *Joseph Reagle, “Re: Wikipedia, Emergence, and The Wisdom of Crowds”, wikipedia-l, May 4, 2005, (visited on May 4, 2005). 2

  65. *Poe, “The Hive”.

  66. *Helprin, Digital Barbarism, 65-66. 2

  67. *Lanier, “Digital Maoism”. 2

  68. *Jimmy Wales, “On ‘Digital Maoism’,” Edge, May 30, 2006, (visited on June 7, 2006). 2

  69. *Yochai Benkler, “On ‘Digital Maoism’,” Edge, May 30, 2006, (visited on June 7, 2006). 2

  70. *Clay Shirky, “Old Revolutions Good, New Revolutions Bad: a Response to Gorman”, Many-to-Many, June 13, 2007, (visited on June 15, 2007), 3.

  71. *Matthew Battles, “Authority of a New Kind,” Britannica Blog: Web 2.0 Forum, June 13, 2007, (visited on June 27, 2007). 2

  72. *Gorman, “Web 2.0”, 2. 2

  73. *Stallman, “The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource”. 2

  74. *Steven Levy, “The Trend Spotter,” Wired 13, number 10 (October 2005), (visited on October 20, 2008); Nick Carr, “The Amorality of Web 2.0,” Rough Type, October 3, 2005, (visited on October 20, 2005). 2

  75. *Michael Gorman, “The Siren Song of the Internet: Part II,” Britannica Blog, June 19, 2007, (visited on June 29, 2007). 2

  76. *Thomas Mann, “Brave New (Digital) World, Part II: Foolishness 2.0?,” Britannica Blog: Web 2.0 Forum, June 27, 2007, (visited on June 27, 2007). 2

  77. *Adrian Johns, “The Birth of Scientific Reading,” Nature 409, number 287 (January 18, 2001): 633, (accessed August 22, 2007). 2

  78. *Glenn Reynolds, An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths (Nashville: Nelson Current, 2006).

  79. *Anderson, The Long Tail. 2

  80. *Battles, “Authority of a New Kind”. 2

  81. *Shirky, “Old Revolutions Good, New Revolutions Bad”. 2

  82. *Battles, “Authority of a New Kind”, 2. 2

  83. *danah boyd, “Knowledge Access as a Public Good,” Britannica Blog: Web 2.0 Forum, June 27, 2007, (visited on June 27, 2007). 2

  84. *danah boyd, “Wikipedia, Academia and Seigenthaler,” Many-to-Many, December 17, 2005, (visited on December 17, 2005). 2

  85. *Burke, A Social History of Knowledge. 2

  86. *

    On communism, see Andrew Keen, “Web 2.0: The Second Generation of the Internet Has Arrived. It’s Worse Than You Think.,” The Weekly Standard (February 15, 2006), (visited on September 15, 2007); on socialism, see Richard Stallman, “Bill Gates and Other Communists,” CNET, February 15, 2005, (visited on September 15, 2007); Richard Stallman, “Pigdog Interviews Richard Stallman”, GNUisance, February 15, 2005, (visited on September 15, 2007); Larry Lessig, “Et Tu, KK? (Aka, No, Kevin, This Is Not ‘Socialism’),” Lessig Blog, May 28, 2009, (visited on May 29, 2009); on Maoism, see Lanier, “Digital Maoism”. 2

  87. *

    Hayek is also the central theorist in Cass Sunstein, Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), (visited on September 27, 2007). 2

  88. *Mann, “Brave New (Digital) World, Part II”, 4. 2

  89. *Michael Gorman, “Revenge of the Blog People!,” Library Journal (February 15, 2005), (visited on August 22, 2007). 2

  90. *

    Wales is described as an “Enlightenment kind of guy” in Schiff, “Know It All”, 3; he is described as a “counter-enlightenment guy” in Keen, The Cult of the Amateur, 41. 2

  91. *Suzanne Briet, “What Is Documentation? (Qu’Est-Ce Que La Documentation?)”, in What is Documentation: English Translation of the Classic French Text, ed. Ronald E. Day, Laurent Martinet, and Hermina G. B. Anghelescu (trans.) (1951; Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2006), 42, (accessed December 14, 2006). 2

  92. *

    Pantisocracy was never realized and after *Metropolitana*’s initial publication, with editorial changes not to his liking, Coleridge withdrew from the project and it subsequently failed. However, his introduction expounding upon its “method” of organizing knowledge according to a progression of intellectual disciplines, rather than alphabetically, would influence other encyclopedists. For more on Coleridge’s projects see McArthur, Worlds of Reference, 157; Stockwell, A History of Information Storage and Retrieval, 109. 2

  93. *Simon Winchester, The Professor and the Madman (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), 38. 2

  94. *Ibidem. 2

  95. *McArthur, Worlds of Reference, 93. 2

  96. *Caius Plinius Caecilius, “To Baebius Macer (XXVII),” Ancient History Sourcebook, 1909, (accessed March 18, 2005), XXVII.

  97. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Wikipediholic,” Wikipedia, May 10, 2009, (visited on May 29, 2009); Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Editcountitis,” Wikipedia, April 30, 2009, (visited on May 29, 2009). 2

  98. *Wikimedia, “Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2006/En,” Wikimedia, September 23, 2006, (visited on December 4, 2006); Wikimedia, “Board Elections/2008/En,” Wikimedia, June 27, 2008, (visited on July 30, 2009). 2

  99. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians,” Wikipedia, May 28, 2009, (visited on May 29, 2009). 2

  100. *Johnson, “Preface”. 2

  101. *Jacobs, The-Know-It-All, 88. 2

  102. *holotone, “Wikipedia Showdown!,” grupthink, August 3, 2006, (visited on August 3, 2006). 2

  103. *Nov, “What Motivates Wikipedians?” 2

  104. *Alexandra Shimo, “Prolific Canadian Is King of Wikipedia,” The Globe and Mail (August 4, 2006), (visited on August 7, 2006). 2

  105. *Wikipedia, “User:Seth Ilys/Dot Project,” Wikipedia, August 4, 2006, (visited on August 22, 2006). 2

  106. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Blocking Policy,” Wikipedia, April 6, 2006, (visited on April 6, 2006). 2

  107. *Nicolas A. Basbanes, A Gentle Madness: Bibliophiles, Bibliomanes, and the Eternal Passion for Books (New York: Henry Holt / Company, 1999). 2

  108. *Charles Arthur, “Log on and Join in, but Beware the Web Cults,” The Guardian (December 15, 2005), (accessed December 23, 2005). 2

  109. *Gorman, “Jabberwiki”. 2

  110. *Helprin, Digital Barbarism, 18. 2

  111. *Lanier, “Digital Maoism”. 2

  112. *Andrew Orlowski, “Wikipedia Founder Admits to Serious Quality Problems”, The Register, October 18, 2005, (accessed October 20, 2005). 2

  113. *Paulo Correa, Alexandra Correa, and Malgosia Askanas, “Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance,” Aetherometry, December 2005, (visited on April 17, 2009). 2

  114. *Otlet, “Transformations in the Bibliographical Apparatus of the Sciences”, 149. 2

  115. *Kathy Bowrey and Matthew, “Rip, Mix, Burn,” First Monday 7, number 8 (July 2005), (visited on November 6, 2007). 2

  116. *Michael Gorman, “Google and God’s Mind: the Problem Is, Information Isn’t Knowledge,” Los Angeles Times (December 17, 2004), (visited on August 22, 2007). 2

  117. *Kelly, “Scan This Book! What Will Happen to Books? Reader, Take Heart! Publisher, Be Very, Very Afraid. Internet Search Engines Will Set Them Free. A Manifesto”, 2. 2

  118. *Ibidem, 2-3. 2

  119. *Gorman, “Google and God’s Mind”, 2. 2

  120. *Keen, The Cult of the Amateur, 57. 2

  121. *Kevin Drum, “Google and the Human Spirit: a Reply to Michael Gorman”, Washington Monthly (December 17, 2004), (visited on August 22, 2007). 2

  122. *Otlet, “The Science of Bibliography and Documentation”, 79. 2

  123. *Johns, “The Birth of Scientific Reading”; Ann M. Blair, “Reading Strategies for Coping with Information Overload Ca. 1550-1700,” Journal of the History of Ideas 64, number 1 (2003): 11–28, (visited on May 23, 2008). 2

  124. *Francis Bacon, “Of Studies,” in Bacon’s Essays; With Introduction, Notes, and Index, ed. Edwin A. Abbott (London: Longman’s, 1879), 185, (visited on May 20, 2008). 2

  125. *Hugh Of St. Victor, “The Seven Liberal Arts: on Study and Teaching (Twelfth Century),” in The Portable Medieval Reader, ed. James Bruce Ross and Mary Martin McLaughlin, Viking Portable Library (Penguin, 1977), 584-585. 2

  126. *

    Gorman, “Revenge of the Blog People!” Much as Godwin’s Law predicts an unfavorable Nazi analogy in a long discussion, arguments about technology inevitably prompt a comparison with the Luddites, see Michael Gorman, “The Siren Song of the Internet: Part I,” Britannica Blog, June 18, 2007, (visited on June 29, 2007); Clay Shirky, “Gorman, Redux: the Siren Song of the Internet”, June 20, 2007, (visited on June 29, 2007). 2

  127. *Andrew Orlowski, “There’s No Wikipedia Entry for ‘Moral Responsibility’,” The Register, December 13, 2005, (accessed December 13, 2005). 2

  128. *Nicholas Carr, “Stabbing Polonius,” Rough Type, April 26, 2007, (visited on April 30, 2007). 2

  129. *Lanier, “Digital Maoism”. 2

  130. *Gorman, “Web 2.0”. 2

  131. *Helprin, Digital Barbarism, 65. 2

  132. *Carr, “Stabbing Polonius”. 2

  133. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Verifiability (oldid=251829388)”. 2

  134. *Tapscott and Williams, Wikinomics. 2

  135. *Sunstein, Why Societies Need Dissent. 2

  136. *Jeremy Wagstaff, “The New Cliche: ‘It’s the Wikipedia of…’,” Loose Wire, September 29, 2005, (visited on October 2, 2005). 2

  137. *Sanger, “The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia”; PeopleProjectsAndPatterns, “Wikipedia,” Cunningham & Cunningham, 2007, (visited on September 21, 2007); danah boyd, “Academia and Wikipedia,” Many-to-Many, January 4, 2005, (accessed January 4, 2005); Clay Shirky, “Wikipedia: Me on Boyd on Sanger on Wales,” Many-to-Many, January 5, 2005, (visited on January 5, 2005). 2

  138. *Larry Sanger, “Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias”, Kuro5hin, July 25, 2001, (visited on June 6, 2006). 2

  139. *Peter Jacso, “Peter’s Picks & Pans,” Online 26 (Mar/Apr 2002): 79–83. 2

  140. *Wikimedia Foundation, “Wikipedia Reaches 2 Million Articles,” Wikimedia Foundation, September 13, 2007, (accessed September 13, 2007); Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Million Pool,” Wikipedia, August 5, 2007, (visited on September 7, 2007). 2

  141. *Burt Helm, “Wikipedia: ‘A Work in Progress’,” Business Week Online, December 14, 2005, (visited on December 15, 2005). 2

  142. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not (oldid=292975573)”. 2

  143. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:10 Things You did Not Know about Wikipedia”, Wikipedia, September 3, 2007, (accessed September 7, 2007). 2

  144. *The Guardian, “In Praise of … the Wikipedia,” The Guardian (December 9, 2005), (accessed December 9, 2005). 2

  145. *John Quiggin, “Wikipedia and Sausages,” Out Of the Crooked Timer, March 1, 2006, (visited on March 1, 2006). 2

  146. *Bill Thompson, “Wikipedia - a Flawed and Incomplete Testament to the Essential Fallibility of Human Nature,” BBC - Digital Revolution Blog, July 23, 2009, (accessed July 23, 2009). 2

  147. *Benkler, “On ‘Digital Maoism’”. 2

  148. *Cory Doctorow, “On ‘Digital Maoism’,” Edge, May 30, 2006, (visited on June 7, 2006). 2

  149. *Kevin Kelly, “On ‘Digital Maoism’,” Edge, May 30, 2006, (visited on June 7, 2006). 2

  150. *Giles, “Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head”. 2

  151. *Nate Anderson, “Britannica Attacks Nature in Newspaper Ads,” Ars Technica, April 5, 2006, (accessed April 5, 2006); Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:External Peer Review/Nature December 2005/Errors,” Wikipedia, February 9, 2006, (visited on April 6, 2006). 2

  152. *Orlowski, “Wikipedia Founder Admits to Serious Quality Problems”. 2

  153. *Robert McHenry, quoted in Schiff, “Know It All”, 7. 2

  154. *Carr, “The Amorality of Web 2.0”. 2

  155. *Peter Denning et al., “Inside Risks: Wikipedia Risks,” Communications of the ACM 48, number 12 (2005): 152, (visited on May 1, 2007); Keen, The Cult of the Amateur, 27. 2

  156. *Wikipedia, “Every Time You Masturbate… God Kills a Kitten,” Wikipedia, September 11, 2007, (accessed September 13, 2007); Keen, The Cult of the Amateur, 29. 2

  157. *

    Nick Carr, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” Atlantic Monthly (July 2008), (visited on June 27, 2008); a well researched and persuasive argument of detrimental media effects can be found in Mark Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Is Stupefied as Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future: or, Don’t Trust Anyone under 30 (New York: Tarcher/Penguin, 2008). 2

  158. *Gorman, “Web 2.0”. 2

  159. *Gorman, “Jabberwiki”. 2

  160. *Shirky, “Old Revolutions Good, New Revolutions Bad”. 2

  161. *Scott Mclemee, “Mass Culture 2.0,” Inside Higher Ed, June 20, 2007, (visited on June 27, 2007), 4. 2

  162. *Douglas Adams, “How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Internet,” The Sunday Times (August 29, 1999), (visited on December 12, 2007). 2

  163. *Clay Shirky, “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable,” Shirky, March 13, 2009, (visited on March 14, 2009); Weber, The Success of Open Source. 2

  164. *Hunter R. Rawlings III, “Information, Knowledge, Authority, and Democracy (ARL Keynote),” October 10, 2007, (visited on April 17, 2009). 2