| Author |
Message |
    
Ligeti Man Meat
Citizen
Username: Ligeti
Post Number: 644
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 12:02 pm: | 
|
"One of the greatest uses of the Internet is as a universal medium of communication. Getting a message out through the web is cheaper than through a television station, can reach a wider audience than a newspaper, and is faster than printing a book.
While the lack of constraint may indeed thrill the provider of web content, it is a huge downside for the reader. The web is perhaps the least reliable source of information available. With no editor or standard for most web content, the reader is forced to burrow through this information landfill and separate the useful and accurate content from the misinformation...Information that can find no outlet other than the web is third tier, and the writer's enthusiasm for seeing it in print is is rarely shared by the reader."
Future Hype: The Myths of Technology Change / Everything You Thought You Knew About Technology Change is Wrong
Bob Seidensticker (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., April 2006)
|
Monster©
Supporter
Username: Monster
Post Number: 2855
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 1:03 pm: |
|
isn't it wonderful
 |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 820
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 10:49 pm: |
|
True the signal-to-noise ratio becomes problematic with this "new" communication medium.
Broadcaster and reader are in fact potentially the same.
Good points and bad points. Good: Respect can be earned, and money can't necessarily buy respect. Bad: you have to work hard to figure out who to respect, what sources of information are truly reliable.
But... is it better to have to work hard to figure out who is worthy of that respect, or was it better before, when you had 3 TV networks and 3 anchors run by 3 large corporations providing most of your daily dose of information, neatly packaged?
I don't mind having to figure out which sources are worthy of my consideration and which are not. In fact I prefer it; and the more you do it, the better at it you get.
|
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 821
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 10:51 pm: |
|
BTW, saying "the web is the least reliable source of information" is kind of like saying "electromagnetic waves are the least reliable source of information." The web is a medium, not a source.
|
Ligeti Man Meat
Citizen
Username: Ligeti
Post Number: 646
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 10:05 am: |
|
Kids (I include anyone in their 20s in this category) are increasingly addicted to the Internet as "The" source of information. It's amazing what silly goop my kids come with while doing homework research on computers. It took months of rigorous training to get them to use dictionaries, for example.
Almost always, superior information is available in encyclopedias, the library, almanacs and dictionaries. With my low-tech systems, I myself consistently come up with accurate, factual content faster than the geeks do on their computers.
Except for brain surgery and air traffic control, you're almost always better off relying on low-tech solutions. |
Mr. Big Poppa
Citizen
Username: Big_poppa
Post Number: 617
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 11:34 am: |
|
Maybe we should rely on trustworthy outlets like the NY Times and Fox News? |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 824
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
|
For information that is static, printed documentation may be superior but then again printed documentation, say that same encyclopedia you're referencing, may be published on the web, and if it is, has its quality been somehow compromised? I expect not.
The web is better than printed documentation for information that changes rapidly. For instance getting stock quotes from the internet is superior to looking them up in the stock page of your evening paper or having to call a broker to get a quote. And if I put up my own web page and start spewing out made-up stock quotes, do you really think anyone is going to take that seriously when they can cross-check with a multitude of other sources readily?
My main issue here is the fuzzy confusion in this argument between the source and the medium. It is true that the internet as a medium allows for a greater quantity of less reliable sources to publish information. However, it is possible to be a source of integrity and publish on the internet and maintain and/or even enhance that integrity. It is also possible to be an unreliable source with little integrity and publish in printed form. Would you maintain, for example, that a printed copy of an astrology booklet picked up at the supermarket is more factual and accurate than, say, the Encyclopedia Brittanica's online web site?
This author seems to want to avoid making important logical distinctions between sources of information and the medium by which that information is published. The argument is watered down and too generalized for my liking. I'd even go so far as to call it "dumbed down."
Keep in mind I tend to agree with you in many cases that people do dumb things with technology, things which would be easier and better done without it. I just don't think this guy is making a good case.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page