Why do folks fight over Wikipedia so much? Just like so many other things, its not as bad or as good as the experts or masses make it out to be. Its just another resource, and if anyone is using any source as the end-all and be-all of information, they need to seriously consider 1) cultivating a little more patience and 2) un-learning at the hands of skilled mentors. Of course, requiring substantial research skills be taught from the elementary school level on up would help a lot for the latter.
The Washington Post recently posted an article by Monica Hesse titled "Truth: Can You Handle It? Better Yet: Do You Know It When You See It?" A couple ideas she talks about are the two aforementioned items above, but that's only part of it. Like so many articles I read today, the online discussion/comments are more interesting and more vital to the various citizens around the globe than the published piece itself. If we look back on pre-web times, public discourse based on newspaper articles was taking place face-to-face at the dinner tables, barbershops, and churches instead of in the digital realm, so is it just a case of the mode changing more than the message? Is more in-depth investigative journalism always better than creating a fact-based conversation starter? Is Beck_Childs on the right track with these points in the comment section?:
The Washington Post recently posted an article by Monica Hesse titled "Truth: Can You Handle It? Better Yet: Do You Know It When You See It?" A couple ideas she talks about are the two aforementioned items above, but that's only part of it. Like so many articles I read today, the online discussion/comments are more interesting and more vital to the various citizens around the globe than the published piece itself. If we look back on pre-web times, public discourse based on newspaper articles was taking place face-to-face at the dinner tables, barbershops, and churches instead of in the digital realm, so is it just a case of the mode changing more than the message? Is more in-depth investigative journalism always better than creating a fact-based conversation starter? Is Beck_Childs on the right track with these points in the comment section?:
1) Kids aren't taught critical thinking, and they're generally dumb as a result. This is a broad problem, not one specific to the Internet.Check out the article and the other comments and spout your "information" about any and all these topics, please.
2) When the paper books you keep referring to are replaced with electronic versions, as they will be, the "problem" you posit will go away.
3) What's even lower on the brain-food scale than wikipedia and blogs? The lazy, self-serving anecdotes you use in this piece. Perhaps you should tell us how many books you researched and how much time and money was spent to do your little paid-for homework assignment here?.....
Again, thanks Chuck for the heads up.
No comments:
Post a Comment