His cynicism always seemed tinged with a utopian optimism I agree completely. In light of recent developments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5285627

His cynicism always seemed tinged with a utopian optimism I agree completely. In light of recent developments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5285627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5285627 you might say that his views are becoming better more widely accepted, even if their history is not acknowledged. In Computer Lib Nelson advocated what we today might call a "Wikipedia" or "Khan Academy" model of education. I'll allow myself to post an extended quotation from his reaction to dialogue-based learning systems because I find the entire thing fascinating and terribly prescient (keep in mind that this was published in 1974): "The alternative is straightforward. Instead of devising elaborate systems permitting the computer or its instructional contents to control the situation, why not permit the student to control the system, show him how to do so intelligently, and make it easy for him to find his own way? Discard the sequences, items and conversation, and allow the student to move freely through materials which he may control. Never mind optimizing reinforcement or validating teaching sequences. Motivate the user and let him loose in a wonderful place. Let the student control the sequence, put him in control of interesting and clear material, and make him feel good— comfortable, interested, and autonomous. Teach him to orient himself: not having the system answer questions, all typed in, but allowing the student to get answers by looking in a fairly obvious place. (Dialogue is unnecessary even when it does not intrude.) Such ultra-rich environments allow the student to choose what he will study, when he will study it and how he will study it, and to what criteria of accomplishment he will aim. Let the student pick what he wishes to study next, decide when he wishes to be tested, and give him a variety of interesting materials, events and opportunities. Let the student ask to be tested on what he thinks he knows, when he is ready, selecting the most appropriate form of testing available. This approach has several advantages. First, it circumvents the incredible obstacles created by the dialogue-item-sequence philosophy. It ends the danger to students of bugs in the material. And last, it does what education is supposed to do—foster student enthusiasm, involvement, and self-reliance. Under such circumstances students will actually be interested, motivated to achieve far more than they have ever achieved within the normal instructional framework; and any lopsidedness which may result will be far offset by the degree of accomplishment which will occur—it being much better to create lopsided but enthusiastic genius specialists than listless, apathetic, or cruelly rebellious mediocrities. If they start soon enough they may even reach adulthood with natural minds: driven by enthusiasm and interest, crippled in no areas, eager to learn more, and far smarter than people ordinarily end up being. Enthusiasm and involvement are what really count. This is why the right to explore far outweighs any administrative advantages of creating and enforcing “subjects” and curriculum sequences. The enhancement of motivation that will follow from letting kids learn anything they want to learn will far outweigh any specialization that may result. By the elimination or benign replacement of both curriculum and tests in an ultra-rich environment, we will prevent the attrition of the natural motivation of children from its initially enormous levels, and mental development will be the natural straight diagonal rather than the customary parabola."