You can say it's my job to fight it but I don't know what it is anymore.
More than that, I don't want to know. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He would have to say, okay, I'll be part of this world.
It's high time people stopped kvetching about Wikipedia, which has long been the best encyclopedia available in English, and started figuring out what it portends instead.
It's not perfect, of course, but neither is any other human-derived resource, including, as if it were necessary to say so, printed encyclopedias or books. It bears mentioning that if Wikipedia is a valuable resource, that is because a lot of people -- untold thousands, in fact -- are busting tail to make it that way.
Marshall McLuhan's insights, though they are being lived by millions every day, will take a long time to become fully manifest. But it's already clear that Wikipedia, along with other crowd-sourced resources, is wreaking a certain amount of McLuhanesque havoc on conventional notions of "authority," "authorship," and even "knowledge."
A lot of things have changed since 2006, but Jaron Lanier's mind is not among them. Seriously, reading his stuff is like watching a guy lose his shirt at the roulette wheel and still he keeps on grimly putting everything on the same number.
Events have long ago overtaken the small matter of "the independent author." The question that counts now is: the line between author and reader is blurring, whether we like it or not. How can we use that incontrovertible fact to all our benefit?
Maybe disagreement doesn't have to be a battle to be fought to the death; it can be embraced, even savored.