The Internets Lack of a Supreme Being
One of Dreyfus’ problems with the internet is the fact that there is higher authority of the internet; one giant figurehead that controls all the information being published on the net at all times of the day. First I would like to point out is that that is impossible. The internet has become so vast, it is impossible for an organization, let alone one person to monitor everything that goes on the net. Nevertheless, let us delve into the realm of possibility and assume that it is doable, or better yet, we start smaller and go with out good friend Wikipedia.
Wikipedia, the thing that makes teachers smile with glee when they see it in a Works Cited page as they reach for a red marker, is a great source for learning vast amounts of (sometimes useless) information. Let us say we had a Supreme overlord of Wikipedia, Supreme Wikipedian. This person had the ability to correct all articles and make it so that once he has had the last word, they cannot be edited again unless the event is ongoing (articles dealing with living people, modern films, etc.) in which case a new development would have to occur for someone else to be able to edit it. Nevertheless, the Supreme Wikipedian always has the final say.
Now my problem with this is that no one person is the expert on EVERYTHING! It is extremely improbable that one person could be an expert on Nuclear Physics, Cartesian Philosophy, Hulk Hogan, Metal Gear Solid, Sailor Moon, Sebastian Bach, Chinese history, Renaissance Art, and Romantic period Literature. I mean, it is so unlikely, that I would even say it is impossible. Now if say you had two people, then they might be able to cover a much wider range of topics, but then if they have conflicting views on an issue, the history of the Manhattan project, then who takes precedence? The history expert or the nuclear physicist? The more ‘experts’ you have that run things, the more problems like this you would have. It becomes much trickier when you get into more subjective areas like the Arts. Dan Pierson mentioned in a post that he disagrees with critic in the Tribune. While I am not saying that Dan is wrong (I am by no means a musical expert, let alone Jazz), all I am saying is that things like music and the arts are very subjective and there really is no official saying, this is good or this is bad, it is all a matter of opinion. I imagine that if enough artists get together and declare something good/bad, then that’s the majority opinion, but there will always be those dissenters who feel the opposite because it appeals/doesn’t appeal to them. This is different than say mathematics where you cannot argue that 1+1=2. We know that it is fact, and anyone who disagrees either doesn’t understand or/and is a moron. Yes, I know comparing math to art isn’t necessarily fair, but I am just trying to show why a supreme authority, especially for art won’t work.
I believe the system currently at play in Wikipedia is a good one. People check pages and read them and if they notice things are all wrong, they get corrected and re-corrected until you get the truth or as close as you can to the truth. Of course, you should always take everything with a grain of salt, but I prefer the few inaccuracies to the Supreme Wikipedian (SW) and their lack of all knowledge and probable bias. Yes, I believe it is impossible for the SW to be totally and completely unbiased. Every human has a bias in something, and if they had to be the supreme decider on the arts, their bias would easily come out in some manner. So no SW, let the masses be the correctors of the Internet and they will also decide which websites are credible and which not.
SOCIALISM BABY…only on the net, of course. 
12 Responses to 'The Internets Lack of a Supreme Being'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree that there shouldn’t be any one “privileged user” who controls all. But, I don’t think that wikipedia really expresses any explicit opinions. Taking the jazz example, I think the SW would probably say that “Miles Davis is an influential jazz musician” versus “Miles Davis is the shit.” Wouldn’t you say Wikipedia does the same? As it is, Wikipedia doesn’t try to pick an individual opinion, but rather gauges general sides taken on an issue, criticisms, reviews, and etc. that are presented by the general public. Most of the time, it is simply providing facts, not opinions, and I don’t think that would change if it were all monitored by the SW.
Gautam Srikishan
2 Dec 08 at 6:53 pm
While it seems impossible for a supreme wikipedian to write and revise every article, it isn’t really such an impossible task. The supreme wikipedian would be able to split up articles and assign other professionals to do the work. Maybe these professionals would even further split of the task onto other people. The result would be the way almost any company works—like a triangle, everyone in the company has a boss who has a boss who has a boss that all leads to the one supreme overlord. This resulting system might end up being just as effect as the current wikipedia, and the supreme wikipedian would still have the power.
So I guess the point I’m getting at is that you can have a ruler, but they would probably have to spread out their power to many different people, and it probably wouldn’t be as effective or efficient as having no supreme being at all.
Brad Thompson
3 Dec 08 at 12:24 am
What I have been trying to get at is that Miles Davis, John Lennon, Ravi Shankar, Bjork, Maurice Ravel, Elton John, Thom Yorke, and Beethoven are all incredible musicians that have greatly contributed to the history of music. FACT. It is OFFICIAL. Denying that these musician have a made a significant contribution to music is like saying that Einstein had no significant contributions to physics. OPINION comes into play when I say that Miles Davis is the greatest innovator of the 20th century. That is highly debatable because it is my opinion. There are concrete qualities that make a musician great and there is extensive knowledge that a physicist needs to understand in order to be considered a great physicist. When you read about an artist on wikipedia you don’t get any opinions, but rather factual information about what their art was all about. When you have a critic who says that an incompetent musician is great it’s like like someone hailing an incompetent physicist as the one of the greats. You have to reach a certain level of competency to be considered a “great” in any field.
Dan Pierson
3 Dec 08 at 3:46 pm
I agree with Dan. The musicians he named - there are several more, obviously who meet these criteria; Bob Dylan springs to mind - have accomplished things that make them easy choices for the short list of highly influential people. Saying that these are opinions because an opposing side exists isn’t as effective as one would hope, since people seem to have an enduring attraction to dissonance; look at the people who deny the Holocaust.
(I’m not trying to equate the importance of the debate concerning Miles’ greatness to the Holocaust. It’s just an example.)
Luke Kaiser
3 Dec 08 at 4:31 pm
That small list that I came up with doesn’t even scratch the surface of great innovators in music. I left out Bob Dylan as well as numerous others.
Dan Pierson
3 Dec 08 at 5:23 pm
And me. You left out me.
Katherine Anderson
5 Dec 08 at 3:06 am
I’m really sorry, team. I don’t know what’s gotten into me. It’s really late, and I appear to have lost my mind, or at least my normal degree of inhibition (maybe it’s because I’m online?). I’m not drunk. Honest.
I think I’m going to go write a post, now.
Katherine Anderson
5 Dec 08 at 3:08 am
Dan
While I agree with you about those musicians, those are honestly ones who can be indisputable when it comes to them having effected music. But when you get into people who are more questionable, I think there is when people’s opinions will take over. No one would deny that Lennon was great and contributed to music, but Britney Spears also contributed to musical history. Yes, I just compared abysmal Britney to the great John Lennon, I can never be forgiven. My point being that you cannot deny that Britney shaped music during the 90’s in a way similar to Lennon and the Beatles during the 60’s. I know I am making a bit of a stretch here, but bear with me. A much better example would be how Nirvana shook up music in the 90’s the same way groups like the Beatles shook up music in the 60’s. It is widely said that Nirvana catapulted alternative rock into the mainstream with the release of Smells like Teen Spirit, and yet Time Magazine said in 2006 that it was their worst song on the Album. I think you would call that a critic being completely wrong, least in comparison to everyone else who praises it. Honestly I am the worst person to be arguing this, as music and I have never gone well together. I suppose I agree with you in terms of musicians, but idk still about artists suchas say painters…or idk. So bloody confusing.
Jason Blumstein
5 Dec 08 at 5:15 am
Don’t you all understand? There is a Supreme Wikipedian. There is a single entity governing the entirety of wikipedia, and all of wikimedia’s other projects, wiktionary, et cetera. That ultimate force guiding wikipedia is all of us. And yes, I would say that the collective that is “us” is an individual! Remember how a state machine can be one on many different levels? Tis the same with us, as a system of tools. Many of the tools we use are systems of tools themselves. All of us are just the system of tools that makes up Wikipedia.
Joel Ferm
5 Dec 08 at 10:11 pm
Good point Joel. the reason why Wikipedia generally lacks bias is due to the fact that its opinion is shaped by such a large user base, and that users can tab an article as containing bias, which will predicate the article to warn users to either discredit the article, or motivate informed members to make changes based on what they know. Wikipedia still can’t be regarded as the ultimate source, but it points people in the right direction as most of the articles in wikipedia require citations to question their validity in the eyes of the community of wikipedia.
Ben Tondera
5 Dec 08 at 10:22 pm
Wikipedia can’t be regarded as the ultimate source, but you should never take an encyclopaedia as an ultimate source. It’s a collection of second-hand sources, and a useful reference, but even Britannica shouldn’t really be cited as a source itself in true academic papers.
I think they’re great as collective brain-extension of the human race though! Wikipedia is one of the best examples of Web 2.0 and all good things that come of the Cloud.
Joel Ferm
5 Dec 08 at 11:01 pm
Joel, that was my main point! I was saying that a Supreme Wikipedian as one person was a terrible idea. I believe the system of Us’s that we have in place where we are equals in our says who are able to eliminate bias that would probably happen if there was just one Supreme Wikipedian.
Also, I don’t believe that britannica is ever cited in true academic papers for exactly that reason of being a second hand source. You don’t actually research, you just look at things other people who researched said.
Jason Blumstein
5 Dec 08 at 11:08 pm