Knowledge vs Intelligence

The core intention for Wikipedia is the collection and publication of knowledge in a bid to become the host of “the sum of all human knowledge” (as Jimmy Wales described it). When discussing the intricacies of a system of collective participation like Wikipedia, is it better to talk about ‘collective intelligence’ or ‘collective knowledge’?

When specifically discussing fact or historical record (bearing in mind a desire to move away from a system where people learn from the elites) ‘collective intelligence’ again implies a hierarchy and the overarching question has to be: who is ‘intelligent’? Furthermore, how is that intelligence classified? Really, everyone harbours some knowledge (maybe about sewing, or painting, counselling, or the traffic flows on a Monday, etc) and ‘intelligence’ discounts that fact. In Pierre Levy’s words: “No one knows everything but everyone knows something”.

Also, ‘intelligence’ implies competition and a ranking (IQ) for the benefit of whoever who is deemed intelligent and that intelligence in turn gives them social capital. ‘Knowledge’, however, is not judged on education qualifications and incites notions of sharing information in a communal sense for the benefit of everyone. In other words, knowledge is passed on – intelligence is not. Knowledge brings with it a sense of community, whereas intelligence is an individual feature. This all ties in with discussions around Web 2.0 and the spirit of ‘sharing’ that underlines it; I will discuss this more in a future post.