September 7, 2004
There's been some follow-up discussion on folksonomies (cf. my earlier post) by Peter, Clay, Victor, and Jon, and what I believe is a related thread about Wikipedia vs. traditional Encyclopedias by Joi, Matt and Cory.
Both discussions seem to boil down to a few common themes: networked vs. hierarchical systems, authority vs. autonomy, and power laws.
Networked information environments like Wikipedia and folksonomies share the advantages of self-organizing systems: fluidity, resilience and autonomy. Hierarchical systems like the Encyclopedia Brittanica and traditional controlled vocabularies share the top-down virtues of fixity, reliability and authority - a quality that, as Matt points out, emerges not by popular vote but as "a slippery, socially-constructed thing conferred over time."
Or as Darwin put it, �The old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.�
What irks me about some of the dialogue to date is an assumption (usually implied) that networked systems are somehow inherently more "fair" than top-down systems. Democracy, like unregulated free markets, are no guarantee of fairness. And while networked systems surely give users more opportunity for input, they also abide by power laws which, though perhaps ineluctable, are neither equal nor fair (especially insofar as they favor early adopters). Top-down systems, while seemingly authoritarian, may paradoxically do a better job of defending the interests of the individual. Just as mob rule is no way to run a country, so purely democratic classifications could lead lead to groupthink, favoring conformity and marginalizing dissent.
But again, I don't believe that top-down and bottom-up systems necessarily have to stand in opposition; the two models may ultimately prove consilient. As Kevin Kelly put it, way back in 1994:
File under: Semantic Web_____________________
« Guantanamo by the Hudson | Semantic browser »
New Paperback Edition
“A penetrating and highly entertaining meditation on the information age and its historical roots.”
—Los Angeles Times