The neutrality of this article is disputed.

I have spent a great deal of time trying to process the Weinberger reading. Perhaps I’m over-complicating this, but when I try to come up with a “thesis” or “reason” for the text, all I get is that Weinberger is defending the third order’s right to be miscellaneous. Maybe “right” isn’t the correct word, maybe “need” or “necessity” is more fitting. His concern seems to be that due to humanity’s inherent desire to organize, the internet could become less beneficial or useful, much like it was in its prototype form, Enquire (190). The more structured and orderly the internet becomes, the less powerful it becomes due to the value of the internet being able to link any and all information (190).

While Weinberger states:

“And what is the most important lesson Wikipedia teaches us?
That Wikipedia is possible. A miscellaneous collection of
anonymous and pseudonymous authors can precipitate knowledge.” (139)

his focus isn’t really the lesson that Wikipedia teaches, but rather the way in which Wikipedia teaches said lesson. It is through links between information and people that Wikipedia has been able to become an authority; through communication and collaboration. People who aren’t authorities, or who might be, but are unknown due to the ambiguity of Wikipedia posting guidelines, work together to make connections that are available for anyone to view and which can become a very valuable resource.

Another way Weinberger says that the internet’s miscellaneous nature is beneficial is through one’s active engagement with it, rather than a passive engagement with a text that just informs from the perspective of some chosen authority (146). Not only can a person interact and contribute to the information, but that person has a responsibility to confirm the accuracy of information gained or at least be aware of the context of their source of information. And yet the active engagement goes even further through use of links that can take a person even deeper in the area of their curiosity or change the direction of it completely through connection and links that were unforeseen.

All of this is the power and benefit of the miscellaneous nature of the internet. So, what happens when the internet is threatened with organization? Weinberger writes “Third-order messes reverse entropy, becoming more meaningful as they become messier, with more relationships built in” (176). Taking this reasoning, if the third-order weren’t as messy, it wouldn’t be as meaningful. By organizing the internet, we would be removing built in relationships and “links” which are the whole basis of its existence.

Does that oversimplify a 230 page published text?