Maybe you've seen some variation on this bumper sticker: "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." That line of logic works well for fundamentalists, but breaks down pretty quickly in the marketplace of ideas that is the Web, and by extension, Internet Evolution.
IE contributor Andrew Keen got me thinking along these lines in the wake of his recently posted column on why Wikipedia blows. This in turn has generated some spirited discussion about the merits of this online resource, and what if anything should be done to improve Wikipedia (or hasten its demise).
To his credit, Keen demonstrates a lot more subtlety than many of the broadsides against Web-based institutions. Perhaps you've enjoyed the recent dissection of blogosphere phenom and New York Times Magazine cover girl Emily Gould. Or this e-diatribe against companies/products we loathe but use anyway, and on to this presumed giant-killer that may be little more than an online clothing store.
Keen's column and the responses to it have raised some thorny issues. For example, if one group (in this case, academics) rejects something, is a resource then null and void for all users? And just how good is information found online? Who edits it and how careful (and independent) are they? And this biggie: What is truth?
Wrestling with these questions is healthy and proper. Using the Internet to debate them isn't an infallible process, but the beauty of it is that it allows lots of voices to be heard. Yes, there are those who confuse opinion with fact (I'm related to most of them), but there's a democratizing effect with online information that's fascinating to watch unfold.
The truth is pretty slippery on the Internet, and in that respect it mirrors real life. But in real life, your ability to talk back to broadcast media, or a mortgage company executive, is limited at best. Unlike the passive way we consume TV and radio content, the Internet requires active engagement. Conscious filtering and discernment. If that's not your thing, there are plenty of places to click to get spoonfed today's "truth." But for those not ready to accept the party line –- the Bible's or Wikipedia's –- the Internet's best attribute is that it's a living laboratory of opinion and point of view.
In other words, that doesn't settle it. And it never will.
This blog is part of Internet Evolution’s IT Clan, which addresses the continuing impact of the Internet on enterprise networks, applications, and management. Register here to join the IT Clan’s conversation, and you just might win something unspeakably cool.
That is the great thing about the internet. I can use it to back my position on nearly any topic I wish to be backed on.
That is why if I go to the net with a certain point of view, I can in mere minutes find plenty of "documentation" to support my position. Certainly, I can find opposing view points if I wish, but if I want to remain narrow minded, I can get confirming evidence to support my line of thinking, and not have to read the rest of it, or can simply dismiss opposing views as ignorant, or just inconvenient.
The question of truth seldom needs enter the fray, because "truth is in the eye of the beholder" anyway, and why should I be wrong simply because someone else says so?
Definitely an inconvenient truth, wouldn't you say? Terry, you are right. Some wrestling required. Great article.
You basically supported my concluding statement that it's all down to a reader's convenience but your last statement does not help at all. Do you want to say a majority of the people are more willing to challenge themselves with different view points? How i would have love that to be truth but sadly though, i beg to differ. i may be wrong but i'm seeing people increasingly opinionated rather than taking a holistic view on issues.
So as your heading goes, the internet is now the new battlefield for groups who wanted the whole world to know that are correct with respect ot their view point. But publications like wikipedia which boast on NPOV as it's cornerstone principle is slowly become a haven for cranks to sell thier agendas.
It will be good though if we can make a conscioutous efforts to hear from the other side and then make an informed judgement on the most pressing of issues. A behind the scene operation at wikipedia will tell you that most people are not ready to listen to other view points.
I can find points of view, masquerading as facts or authoritative commentary, that support a particular position I believe or want to take.
I can find opposition as well. With any luck, I may also come to understand how my opponent's mind works, what the core of his/her argument is, and where my own position breaks down or is faulty.
People twist things, with or without the Internet or Wikipedia. But I believe people are more willing to challenge themselves with different points of view than your postings suggest.
Really enjoyed reading your post which is an apt sequel to Andrew's post. As the following article pointed out, the democratization of information online has made publication like wikipedia both a success and a nightmare at the same time:
I don't see this wrestling as a new trend, although i must admit the internet has raise the stakes much higher now. It's certainly not uncommon to find history books contr adicting each other on a particular event simply because the authors have some agenda or prejudices they want to promote. We've seen disagreement between Japan and China in this respect and i will bet you that an official history book on Turkey will not contain anything on the the Armenian genocide!!
Now we are seeing both pro-Isreal and Pro-Palestinian groups trying to influence articles in wikipedia dealing with that part of the region. So in the midst of this democratization of information online, truth becomes 'truthiness' and the curious reader is left with no alternative but to accept which part of the pie he/he does like best. So in the end it all comes down to a reader's convenience and the internet is just the perfect place to find our convenience of any sort!!!
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) wants enterprise business. And if your shop is like most, it will be up to you as an IT professional whether to take up the vendor's offer.
While many IT professionals were caught up in the emergence of Apple's iPad tablet yesterday (and the ensuing "backlash"), elsewhere in tech a likely more significant trend was taking the spotlight.
If you, as an IT pro, haven't heard the buzz about the Semantic Web and its impact on the enterprise, get with it: The importance of enterprise search as a tool for corporate analytics is forcing the issue of semantics to the forefront of pundit preoccupations.
A lot of observers, myself included, were quick to blame the U.S. government's IT infrastructure a few days back, when information emerged that data on the recent "underwear bomber" had been readily available to government sources who failed to connect the dots.
During a long keynote session at the Computer Electronics Showcase (CES) in Las Vegas today, executives from Ford Motor Company held forth on what's turned out to be a near-term success story driven -- as it were -- by Web-based technology.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
The Google backlash continues. After seeing their Project 10^100 submissions disappear into the bowels of a Google server farm, a group of irate developers has started their own site to re-collect and vote on the ideas.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
