Postmodern knowledge

In ‘Understanding Media’ (1964), Marshall McLuhan wrote: ‘Rapidly, we approach the final phase of the extensions of man – the technological simulation of consciousness, when the creative process of knowing will be collectively and corporately extended to the whole of human society.’

His analysis of the implications here are still well worth reading. He believed the aloof posture of the literate Westerner founded in observation and analysis has now been replaced by a more dynamic and participatory model. What he called ‘the electric implosion’ – because it shrinks the world to a village – ‘compels commitment and participation’.

If he were explaining the significance of wikis today, I imagine he would emphasise his formulation that the ‘message’ of any medium or technology is ‘the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs’.

Wikis are significant on all three counts, since they

• Amplify access to knowledge and involvement in its creation
• Accelerate the process of knowledge formation
• Flatten traditional structures of knowledge

We must be wary of course of over-romanticising them. New technology tends to be so bewitching it tends to encourage utopian thinking. Nonetheless, even the most cursory experience of Wikipedia, the best-known wiki of them all, shows what a powerful tool they can be.

Here’s an example. During a bit of down time at work, I picked a Wikipedia subject I’m reasonably ‘expert’ in – Herman Melville – and read his entry from start to finish.

As you’d expect, he has a very detailed entry, clearly the result of many rewrites and edits. No need to meddle here, I thought, until I started checking the links. One went to a transcript of a hamfisted piece by some minor college academic about Melville’s homosexual relationship with Hawthorne. Checking the ‘discussion’ page for Melville, I found an entry for ‘bisexuality’ that claims ‘Melville was bisexual and this is well known’.

Naturally the dormant academic in me refused to accept this, so I excised that worthless link, and added my two cents’ worth of knowledge on the matter to the discussion page. (You can see for yourself here.)

A microscopic piece of wikiness, you might say (with complete justice). Having made the transition from user to participant, however, I’ve gained a better understanding of what makes Wikipedia so unique:

1. It’s open and accepting. Obviously the lack of parental control allows for idiocy and vandalism, but the vast majority clearly respect this freedom. Experiencing this can give your faith in human nature a welcome fillip.
2. It’s communal without demanding absolute consensus. The ‘discussion’ page is a vital part of its structure, showing the process of knowledge formation at work, and allowing for dissensus to be aired.
3. It’s 21^st century knowledge – imperfect, evolving, accessible, open to question. I call it postmodern knowledge…