Talk:Jaron Lanier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism of this article by Lanier

Jaron Lanier objects to being called a 'film director' in the article here: http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge183.html [Note - Mattgrommes]

"I have attempted to retire from directing films in the alternative universe that is the Wikipedia a number of times, but somebody always overrules me. Every time my Wikipedia entry is corrected, within a day I'm turned into a film director again."

I don't see discussion about. I hereby propose to remove this part of the description, in deference to the guidelines in WP:LIVING

Seth Finkelstein 03:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully support this change, and will be watching the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

i think the current first paragraph that solely identifies lanier as a vr developer would be just as good including the term film maker. although i guess it's better than identifying him just as a technology philosopher. 71.232.97.99 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Autobiography: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases."

Article "Digital Maoism" by Jaron Lanier

In this article by Jaron Lainer points out that he has, himself, tried to edit this article, but being reverted as vandalism. Concluding that this actually was him, I suggest that we use (some of) the content that he wrote himself, in this edit of the article. Your thoughts? --abach 11:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We should use his own words when possible, especially as he objects to a lot of the article. --Mattgrommes 10:30am, 2 June 2006 {MST)

In an article in the brazilian newspaper "Folha de São Paulo" [1]he said that Wikipedia is an example of digital maoism, that it would be considered a new Bible, and that hereafter the human being as individual would have your importance reduced for that reason!. Berton 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Autobiography: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases." Hyacinth 18:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it a conspiracy?

Why does Seth Finklestein keep insisting on citations for Lanier's brief work in the adult industry and friendship with Ron Jeremy, yet he does not demand citations for anything else? Could it be that such a well known advocate against censorship is trying to cover up facts that may not sit with the morals of the masses? [from "210.239.48.141"]

Sigh. No conspiracy, and not connected to my anti-censorship advocacy. Lanier wrote "I have attempted to retire from directing films in the alternative universe that is the Wikipedia a number of times, but somebody always overrules me. Every time my Wikipedia entry is corrected, within a day I'm turned into a film director again.". I decided to try to keep that part of his biography clean. I could find no reference to the alleged work. Per WP:LIVING: "Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.". That's the sort of information which needs a citation. I don't have the time to validate everything, but that item was something which stood out as dubious. Seth Finkelstein 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Adult Video part has nothing to do with the "film director" issue. If you assert that the association is negative then I stand by my point. [from "210.239.48.141"]

Double-sigh. I meant, reading his plaint above was my motivation to attempt to keep his biography free of spurious description (not that I was intending to only address the two words "film director"). I am not going to dedicate my life to this task, hence I will not examine every single word with gimlet eyes. However, adult video seemed a particularly egregious item.

Please don't argue my motivations. Perhaps they are ill-conceived for other reasons. I don't think that's relevant here. Kindly provide a source, and we can go from there -- Seth Finkelstein 07:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tripple-sigh. Not everything is documentable by a link or published in print. CyberSex Universe was unreleased as noted. To the best of my knowledge the production company, Seasoned Ventures, does not exist any more, nor does the holding company which was the primary investor. Follow the money goes nowhere. By US law, the age of the performers and a consent form would be kept on record for a production of this nature. These are obviously not available on the web. One can verify the existance of the video if one knows the right people, but a linked citation wont happen. [from 210.239.48.141]

Look, meaning no offense, but how then is anyone to know that what you say is true? Perhaps you're writing it as a joke, or an experiment, or as a way of getting back at him for some reason. Heck, you're not even backing it up with an identity! Surely the problem should be obvious -- Seth Finkelstein 07:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's not documentable then it's WP:OR and against policy. -- 71.102.200.232 (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's odd that in this discussion I don't see any reference to the main point that Mr. Lanier was trying to make, namely that an "argumentum ad populum" is not a valid argument form, yet it seems to be the basis of the Wikipedia. As I recall, he points out that in a traditional encyclopedia the editors would choose a specific individual who would then write the article and would take sole responsibility for its content. And yes, there are a lot of problems with the idea that only citations that go to websites or published articles count as citations. I repeatedly tried to change a post that listed a politician as being Gay and it kept being changed back---even though I repeatedly pointed out that I knew both him and the individual he was being confused with, and that I was a high ranking officer in the party (a fact that could easily be verified on line.) It seems to me that there is a real "true believer" element to the wiki and it is impossible to get such folks to see the limitations of the wiki model. This is exactly the same sort of political psychosis that led to the Red Guard in China. Bill Hulet

If people repeatedly added an unconfirmed claim that someone is gay, that has nothing to do "true believers" or "limitations of the wiki model". It's a violation of policy and there are mechanisms for rectifying it. argumentum ad populum is most certainly not the basis of Wikipedia -- that claim suggests little familiarity with WP. -- 71.102.200.232 (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a joke, experiment or revenge. I dont know the subject personally and have only ever seen him on the small screen as it were. The problem from your perspective is understandable, but there is a reason I'm posting with what little anonymity I have in this circumstance. If you have never dealt with the people who invest in this sort of business, the problem is not obvious.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.239.48.141 (talk • contribs)

Lanier's comments

These are the comments that Lanier added to the article on May 18:

Sorry to add this note to the front, but I need to explain why I, Jaron, deleted some of the previous version.

This is just so weird- I'm Jaron and somebody insists on putting nonsense in- so you can change this again, whoever you are, but please at least feel some shame:

Some points: Terrence M was a friends of mine and we talked about this stuff and our ideas were almost opposite- he believed in a kind of psychic unity as a form of communication (achieved through the yage ceremony, for instance) while I was talking about people using craft to create a shared world as a way of communicating in a waking state with no psychic powers in play. Re Tim Leary, we were friends and also had vastly different points of view- for instance, I'm kind of anti-drug and don't even use alcohol- you can read my rememberence of Tim Leary in the chapter i wrote for Timothy Leary: Outside Looking In by Robert Forte

also I'm not a technological optimist - some people even think i'm something of an anti-technology techie- and i would not describe myself as rejecting monism as the term has been used historically- also am NOT a film director (only made one short a long time ago) - have at least an honorary phd (from njit)

i also dispute both the representation of mcluhan that was offered and the claim that what was attributed to him is coincident with my ideas

anyway, i realize that there is no hope of corrections sticking if the less informed person continues to be insistent, but whoever you are, if you please, at least check out the facts above

the problem is that these points should just be deleted- they aren't correctable-

thanks,

a pissed off jaron lanier

Alan Pascoe 17:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

dear j. lanier,

i have the impression that your main-problem might be a insufficient differenciation of the terms "the truth about lanier", "what lanier wants to be the truth about lanier" and "the consensus of a couple of 100 individual editors about what the truth about lanier could be" (excuse my english, not my mothertongue). hence the wikipedia tries to provide knowledge by accumulating individual efforts on coming nearer to a truth, and IS NOT a platform for self-exhibition, you, as the true living lanier, are highly suspicious of trying to change the article about you (which is not "your" article) in a way you would like to be seen rather than you ARE actually percepted. the "i am not a filmmaker" - discussion makes that clear: you do not want to be asked about your film-making, still you made one. maybe you do not like it, but the public (the one that made you somebody, the public that produces you by listening to you) has an obvious interest in that fact of your life. but much simpler: you made a movie an released it - that makes you a filmmaker in some way. (similar arguments could be held against the other "points of deletion" like "I'm not a technological optimist - some people even think i'm something of an anti-technology techie" i mean, sorry mr. lanier, but: who cares?) Maybe it would be more convincing to ignore the wikipedia in this case instead finding weak arguments against a concept, that obviously is not "maoistic" or "collective-blind" or a "Schwarmgeist" (as you were cited in german newspapers).

what do you fear, j. lanier ?

fabian, berlin saturday, 17th june 2006, 13:00 CET

Well, I don't want to seem to speak for Lanier, but I can see it'd be kind of irritating to be repeatedly asked by reporters about something written by some random prankster or misinformed geek, then get lots of hassle when trying to correct it. I really don't think he's trying to hide anything by saying he's not a film director. Regarding philosophy, there certainly can be conflict between what people say, what people say they say, and what other people hear. So care is required in sorting that out. Seth Finkelstein 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry, but - no. there's a difference between how a person emerges "by public view" on one hand and the picture this very person has of its own on the other. lanier simply complains that his private point of view on his person differs from the public perception, that's why i say: who cares. undoubtly it is a rare luxus to have somebody to comment his or her own legend, but i think it is quite naive and self-overestimated to believe he or she has the "authors rights" on how his or her public personality is finally perceived by public. laniers basic argument seems to be the following: hence the editors do not write as i say, there should be a person installed, that accepts my authority and does as i say. his arguments against the uncontrollable way of the wikipedia reminds of 19th century parliamentarism critiques when the socalled "stupid mass of delegates" where compared to the solitary thinking and (self)responsible deciding monarch. therefore i repeat: in my point of view especially the "film director"-issue is a good example of how reliable the wikipedia works. lanier tries to clean that off his bio (no conspiracy, only for cosmetical reasons). wikipedia refuses. fabian, saturday, 17th june 2006, 14:50 CET

I agree with you that the "film director"-issue is a good example of how reliable the wikipedia works, but from the opposite direction. In my view, Jaron Lanier's objection is correct. The term "film director" should not be applied IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA BIOGRAPHY to someone who has made "one experimental short film about a decade and a half ago". IN THIS CONTEXT, the term implies some *substantial* aspect of being a film director is part of a person's life.

As a general comment, I suspect people do not grasp how tedious this is, to have to argue every little detail with what comes off as tinpot power-trippers. It's the exact opposite of WP:FAITH. I don't think he has any particular ill-motives here, it's not like "film director" is a deep dark secret of the past, and exposed him to shame and scorn. Seth Finkelstein 14:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is futile,... should people of public interest really have the right to decide, what is said about them in public? i don't think so. f,18 June 2006 9:15 CET

Maybe not, but that is not the point. In this case, you are wrong and Lanier is right. WinterT 08:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone, private or public, should have accurate and relevant things said about them.

WP:LIVING : "# The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies,

1. If the subject edits the article, it is of vital importance to assume good faith."

-- Seth Finkelstein 08:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fabian, the real issue here is verifiability. It would not be reasonable for this article to contain a statement that cannot be demonstrated to be true. Alan Pascoe 12:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The real issue here is obviously bumbledom and namedropping. fabian 27th june 18:00 CET

This reminds me of a joke "A young couple were visiting a seaside village. While walking along the beach they came across a sailboat and commented how lovely it was. An old man happened to hear them and said "My name is George and I made that boat. The young woman says "Well then you must be George The Boat Builder!" The old man shook his head and replies "You see the church on the hill? I painted the mural inside". The young man asks "Then are you George the Painter?" Again the old man shakes his head, "The signs in front of the stores, I carved those with my own hands." The young couple looks at each other before the woman says "George the what then?" The older man was silent for a moment then sighs "... just one time I made love to a sheep and the name will stay with me forever".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.10.18.77 (talk • contribs)

Changes to address Lanier's criticism

I believe the remaining content that Lanier has objected to is the third paragraph in the lead, and the last two sentences in the last paragraph in the "Philosophical and technological ideas" section. I'm going to delete these because they are not sourced. Alan Pascoe 17:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Lanier's preferred version

Lanier's edit of May 18 also included a preferred version of the article. The difficulty here is that none of it is independently sourced. Alan Pascoe 17:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

His preferred version looks very similar to the BIO page on his website. Alan Pascoe 19:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Puritains

What is it about "In an early issue of Mondo 2000, Lanier was allegedly connected to teledildonics research, however no further connections have been published." that is impropperly sourced? It seems even with sources, people supress the truth about Lanier's relationship with the adult video industry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.239.48.141 (talk • contribs)

Suppression not of truth but improperly supported statements. Firstly, "early issue"; which issue? The fact you did not specify the issue suggests to me that you didn't have the article to hand when you wrote the text. Did your words really represent was in print? Secondly, "allegedly"; who alleged? The article in Mondo 2000 would have been written by a named person; that needs to be stated. What is needed here is something like "Person X claimed that Lanier was connected to teledildonics research", supported by a source with author name, article title, publication issue and date. Alan Pascoe 19:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So the Discover article didnt need a citation but the Mondo one does? I smell a rat.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.10.18.77 (talk • contribs)

The Discover article does need a citation. The words though are not contentious, so unless someone objects to them, there is no need to remove them. Alan Pascoe 19:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the basic problem. By labeling one set of facts as contentious and another not so, in this case a moral POV is being injected into the article. Octopuses and squids contorting themselves without citation is OK but sexuality is not?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.239.48.141 (talk • contribs)

These blackhearted gangster statements from revisionist forces seek to hold back the shining truth from the people who have suffered too long under the heel of Wikipederasts! These reckless cries for citations which only serve the entrenched need for the glorification of the Elites are tatamount to warmongering in the eyes of the suffering masses. The post modern revolutionary mind understands the truth without your bourgeois falsehoods!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.10.18.77 (talk • contribs)

I hope this is a joke. Citations are what gives Wikipedia legitimacy; otherwise it would be nothing more than a thrashing mass of pseudoinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.165.224 (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2007

Wikipedia? A thrashing mass of pseudoinformation? Never! (...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.122.239 (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2010

Term VR

The VR page refers to popularising. To claim he coined it needs some solid verification, I think. -- Beardo 22:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Britannica Encyclopaedia: "The term virtual reality was coined in 1987 by Jaron Lanier, whose research and engineering contributed a number of products to the nascent VR industry. " Berton 13:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia, an encyclopedia is not a reference. (Do they cite a source?) The source of the bio at Cato-Unbound is likely Jaron Lanier himself, which is unsatisfactory in a BLP article. Are there contemporary references crediting him with popularizing the term and being a pioneer? AndroidCat (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hidden Agenda

Each suppression of the Adult Video and Teledildonics facts are surely more signifigant than the facts themselves. The information behind this is as publicly available as any so called fact here yet two or more thought suppression agents continue to try to hide the truth. Were the so called public reasoning of these suppression agents applied evenly more and more would be hidden from truth seekers. We can see through hour hidden agenda of last century control in the name of morality.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.10.18.77 (talk • contribs)

You state "The information behind this is...publicly available". You shouldn't have much difficulty supplying a source then. Alan Pascoe 19:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Adult Video facts are dificult to prove for the reasons discussed above in the "conspiracy" section of this page. The Teledildonics facts can be sourced if one has physical access to the paper issues of Mondo 2000, not sure if that made it into the M2K book or not. If the Discover reference is allowed in without a complete citation, why not the Teledildonics reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.239.48.141 (talk • contribs)

Because there's a difference in implication. Anyway, I added a citation for the Discover reference. Happy now? Seth Finkelstein 04:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I concede on the adult video issue since that would constitute original research. The M2K reference might be tabloid, but I'll try and find which issue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.10.18.77 (talk • contribs)

Info is an Alienated Expense

I've removed references to this book - it is unclear whether the book truly exists. Amazon.com has removed it, Powells doesn't mention it; Barnes and Noble lists it with a publication date of 1966. Amazon.uk does still list it... but the publisher websites, variously listed as Perseus or Basic Books, make no mention of it. All references to the book through Google list only the title and no description. So it looks like it either never existed or is an uncompleted project. Since nothing is known about it, I've removed references to it. - Abracadab 9 pm, or maybe it's only 8:30, August 27, 2006

Update: I received the following from Amazon today:

       We are sorry to report that the release of the following item has 
       been cancelled:
    
          Jaron Lanier "Info Is an Alienated Expense"

       Though we had expected to be able to send this item to you, we've
       since found that it will not be released after all.  Please accept
       our sincerest apologies for the inconvenience we have caused you.

Not that this edit seemed to be even the tiniest bit controversial... ;) Abracadab 04:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Music

I understand that Lanier’s fame is rooted in his virtual reality work, but I think the article could benefit from a section specifically addressing his music. When someone is famous for one thing, it is natural to be suspicious of the importance of their unrelated (or seemingly unrelated) pursuits, but I think it is safe to say Lanier is equally noteworthy as a composer and musical thinker. Unfortunately I don’t know much about his music myself, beyond what’s on Instruments of Change. All I can offer is the suggestion that someone add what they know. --209.6.216.252 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Was Jaron Lanier an inspiration for...

...the character Larry Angelo in the movie The Lawnmower Man?

I noticed that you can anagram the letters from the name Jaron Lanier into Larri Anjeno, which sounds very similar to Larry Angelo. That character was a virtual reality developer with a lot of enthusiasm for the potential uses for VR, exactly like Jaron Lanier.

Now, is there any official word about the fictional character being inspired from the real person, or is it just a coincidence? Devil Master 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Post Symbolic Communication is up for deletion

I put it up for deletion. It breaks a great deal of rules.YVNP 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Was this article written by Jaron Lanier?

This article reads very strange. It talks about his "seminal" works and every sentence starts with "Lanier". Seems more like promotional material than an actual Wikipedia article. JettaMann (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problems

This section:

"Lanier criticism seems to be partially contradictory. In his paper he values web search services which add only one level of page ranking and do not intervene the author's own style. Yet the seemingly lacking diversity of the web is not because of such pages suddenly disappeared but rather only because of the first part of Lanier's sentence: "Since search engines are now more likely to point you to the wikified versions, the Web has lost some of its flavor in casual use."[18]

"However Lanier may be right that the seek for deep information in any area may sooner or later require that you find the information produced by single or few devoted men or company in order that: "You have to have a chance to sense personality in order for language to have its full meaning."[18] and that any encyclopedia produced by only partially interested 3rd parties is not the proper form of such information gathering which needs to bend rather into a form of communication."

Seems to have a lot of problems with NPOV. It appears to be a critique of his arguments rather than a simple statement. Of course, a critical response would be fine but it needs to be a sourced reference to an external critique rather than a part of the article itself. Trevor (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: Mentioned in slashdot today, hence the renewed interest here. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section is problematic. In fact I came here to point that out. --SLi (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like original research. I say ditch it, unless these criticisms have been made in an authoritative source. VsevolodKrolikov 03:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VsevolodKrolikov (talk • contribs)

I've removed this section (over a year after concerns were initially raised!). Criticism, particularly criticism of living people, must be sourced - otherwise it's just original research or editorialising, which is not permitted. Robofish (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not a gadget

In the blurb of this, his latest book, it is suggested that

[...] he is recognized by Encyclopedia Britannica (but certainly not Wikipedia) as one of history's 300 or so greatest inventors [...]

Should this quote perhaps be added as a neat self-referential quip to the main body of this Wikipedia article? Just a thought.

sleuth21 28.01.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleuth21 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to ask .. who does Encyclopedia Britannica cite as the source of that interesting evaluation or is that their own Original Research? (Assuming that EB actually says anything like that.) AndroidCat (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Digital Maoism" Section

There is a section titled "Digital Maoism" after a section that contains a discussion of his article exposing his concept of Digital Maoism. These should be merged together for better continuity and to avoid repetition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpham098 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Film Director" again

Medeis, you asked "explain the revert on talk please, your summary is unclear". When you added "and retired film director", "per self-description in Lanier's essay", I assume in good faith, that for whatever reason, you did not grasp that the descriptions in the essay are sarcastic and a joke. He is not a retired film director. The key part is "I have attempted to retire from directing films in the alternative universe that is the Wikipedia a number of times, but somebody always overrules me. Every time my Wikipedia entry is corrected, within a day I'm turned into a film director again." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Seth. I have a problem with editors deciding what is meant as a joke and what is serious. It amounts to OR and synthesis. I have an even bigger problem with del;eting verifiable and notable matters from what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

If, for instance, Lanier is familiar with wikipedia, one would think he would realize that his own published statements on the matter would be seen as a valid source for the article about him. He most certainly does not say that he is not and never has been a film director. He says that he has not made a film since that one of which he is embarrassed. Unfortunately for him (and I am a huge if not uncritical fan) along with making a name for himself as a critic of wikipedia, he himself has made the director issue notable. Perhaps there may be a better way to express this than "retired film director" (maybe just "wikipedia critic and onetime experimental film director") but given the erstwhile notability of this fact it is entirely contrary to wikipedia policy to delete it from the encyclopedia.μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, if I speculated what Lanier would likely think about this, I think I'd be inviting trouble over WP:CIVIL. This aspect is only notable for Wikipedia navel-gazing, and hardly something that belongs in the lead sentence of his biography. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How Can This Person Be Considered a "Computer Scientist"

He hasn't completed even an undergraduate in computer science, he's written no code of note (if at all), was allegedly fired from roles working with computers, yet he is called a "computer scientist". I would say he's more a philosopher than a scientists, and judging from his writings he misunderstands much of computer science as a discipline. 202.72.159.82 (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but you can get into comp sci from a reference discipline, and coding doesn't seem like a core requirement. However, the Time biography described him as a computer scientist, and he's been described as such in job descriptions, so the term seems to correlate with the sources. - Bilby (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)