Is "Memestreams" any good? In the last few days an experimental approach to diabetes management has been announced that might prevent nerve damage. That's huge news for tens of millions of Americans. It is not mentioned on Memestreams. Memestreams does clue us in to this news: "Student sets simultaneous world ice cream-eating record, worst ever ice cream headache."

Kevin Kelly says of the "Memestreams" site, "There's no better way to watch the hive mind." But the hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?

This essay and the responses look like very interesting reading. Despite my creative editing here I think after a quick skim we actually address many of the concerns that he has with this kind of system.

This essay and the responses look like very interesting reading. Despite my creative editing here I think after a quick skim we actually address many of the concerns that he has with this kind of system.

[ Decius' commentary above seems accurate now that I've read the article.

Lanier is essentially discussing the value of authorship, of content *creation* and personal, individual intellect (or lack thereof, as the case may be).

Memestreams doesn't completely solve authorship in the sense that we still hide behind user id's and don't have to expose ourselves. However, those id's do, in a very real way, expose a personality, and the collected writings of any of the users here do undoubtedly comprise a body of authored work, amateur though it may be.

What I've said fails to be the case if the user treats memestreams purely as a link aggregator. To have a voice, per Lanier, you must speak.

There's a great deal of stimulation in the article, but I'll touch on a few points.

The first isn't directly tied to his thesis, but it seems that fairness ought to have implied a mention, at least. To me, among the greatest features of Wikipedia (and wiki's in general, i suppose) is how well they capitalize on the concept of linking. I have frequently found myself spending a substantial amount of time clicking through chains of entries out of pure curiosity. Obviously, the web itself is founded on this principle, but never seems to deliver quite satisfyingly. Thus, as an authoritative source, or even a voiced source, wikipedia may fail, but as a tool for intellectual stimulation, experimentation and inquiry, I think it succeeds brilliantly.

Secondly, Lanier briefly ties his conception of online collectivism to the state of our traditional media, outside the web. With these points I agree wholeheartedly. There is such a tremendous pressure to appear unbiased that nobody ends up saying much of anything. Or, worse, they hide behind a facade of egalitarianism while being quite clearly otherwise.

I'm not as worried about this situation as Lanier is. In fact, I have argued in the past that aggregation will produce wisdom. I have since softened on that view and Lanier presents a number of compelling arguments to counter my prior feelings. At least, we agree that aggregation can not mean anything without a vibrant body of producers.