Comments on: A General Theory of Information Policy

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Wed, 31 May 2006 20:00:40 +0000

The odd thing is that, as a speaker, I find Yochai incredibly lucid and entertaining. The contrast between the density and rigor of his written works and the accessibility of his spoken word is pretty stark.

By: Henry

Henry — Tue, 30 May 2006 18:59:13 +0000

I don’t know whether this is true in a general sense. At least I, as a non-legal academic haven’t had any problems in understanding his arguments – nor do a number of non-academics whom I’ve seen referencing the book in the blogosphere (e.g. Matt Yglesias, Julian Sanchez). Clearly there’s a problem there for some readers – but I’m not sure whether it’s a problem of academic jargon. Perhaps, to some extent, it’s a problem of having lived and tried to think through the issues of collaboration etc – much of what Benkler says seemed to me to make intuitive sense, because it’s a fully worked out account of ideas that I’d tried to work out for myself, without succeeding in any systematic way. I suspect that if you’ve had this experience, the arguments of the book are much more transparent.

By: alegalacademic

alegalacademic — Tue, 30 May 2006 18:39:56 +0000

I’m a law professor, and I confess I have never been able to understand Benkler. I read the words, but I can’t understand the meaning of his sentences. Given that, I think it’s fair to point out the difficult language he uses: You’re right that it’s a major impediment to even subject matter experts understanding his work.

In fact, the difficulty of Benkler’s writing makes online symposia like this all the more important. We need you all to explain what Benkler is saying: If you can do it in simple language without mumbo jumbo jargon, it will be a major accomplishment and will really advance the scholarly debate about his work.

By: Crooked Timber » » Introduction: The Wealth of Networks seminar

Crooked Timber » » Introduction: The Wealth of Networks seminar — Tue, 30 May 2006 14:43:53 +0000

[...] The contributions are in the order that they are mentioned in Benkler’s response. Henry Farrell argues that not only formal institutions but also informal norms are necessary for these technologies to enable proper collaboration. Dan Hunter celebrates the book, but worries that it covers too many topics, and that it’s written in language that non-academic readers may have difficulty in understanding. John Quiggin examines the underlying motivations behind the production of common resources, and suggests that Benkler’s arguments point to major flaws in innovation policy. Eszter Hargittai suggests that inequalities in the ability to participate may mean that these new technologies won’t do as much to flatten social hierarchies as they might seem to. Jack Balkin claims that Benkler’s book isn’t so much about new modes of cooperation replacing market mechanisms, as existing side-by-side with them. Siva Vaidhyanathan argues that Benkler’s book is guilty of a soft form of technological determinism, which overemphasizes the positive consequences of new technologies and implicitly discounts the less positive. Finally, Yochai Benkler responds to all of the above. [...]