Has internet/google/facebook made people dumber/less informed?

[Ciaphas]

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arlo]

But the person needs to be able to sift through the citations based on the authors bias. depending on the subject matter this can change the entire outline of the information presented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only way you can tell bias is if it's in the title. For instance, if the title of a source reads 'Why Italian Bombers in WWII Were Inferior' and another reads 'Why Italian Bombers in WWII Were Superior' then the bias is obvious. Likely, though, you'll get 'Italian Bombers of WWII' and you'll have to read the material to see if there is bias (recognizing that your own bias may be part of the perception).

[Arlo]

But that's no different from looking at any source.

But what Arlo's describing is not how the vast majority of people use the internet in the second place.

Wiley.

True. Unfortunate, but true. 

[Wiley]

True. Unfortunate, but true. 

An acquaintance of ours has some... "controversial opinions" shall we say?  It used to crack me up, you could show her all kinds of research on whatever she was on about, she'd point at the one site saying something different as definitive proof.

I want to believe that kind of attitude is not the majority, it's just that they're noisy so they're more noticeable.  I really do want to believe that.  Most of the time, I find it difficult.

Wiley.

[Arlo]

Arlo, I did not say all of Wikipedia was useless.  Like was stated, context is everything.  Take something out of context and you can find whatever you want to support any thought you might have.  Look at the flat Earthers for an extreme example.

Just because it has citations does not make it accurate.  Context is king.

Valid citation makes the quote accurate. Context makes the fact or opinion known. Granted, opinions aren't necessarily facts. I'm finding that I'm required to offer cited counter-points in my papers. I'm not required to agree with them.

Wiki is open sourced, which seems to be the main (if not only) reason it isn't allowed to be a source, itself, for academic papers. Anyone can edit a page and the staff needed to check validity is limited. That's why I chase the sources, if I can. I've got a pretty good library on campus and some online databases at my disposal. But, as I said, sometimes Wiki helps me gather sources quicker that the database search engine. It is convenient. But then, that's why people online rely on it when they can't chase the sources cited (and that can be bad).

I fully intend to build a 'thousand book library', though (for the end of civilization/the internet).

[Ciaphas]

The only way you can tell bias is if it's in the title. For instance, if the title of a source reads 'Why Italian Bombers in WWII Were Inferior' and another reads 'Why Italian Bombers in WWII Were Superior' then the bias is obvious. Likely, though, you'll get 'Italian Bombers of WWII' and you'll have to read the material to see if there is bias (recognizing that your own bias may be part of the perception).

Or you do some research on the source. Meh, nothing should be taken at face value. Assuming that something is correct because it has been used as a citation could land egg on your face.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arlo]

An acquaintance of ours has some... "controversial opinions" shall we say?  It used to crack me up, you could show her all kinds of research on whatever she was on about, she'd point at the one site saying something different as definitive proof.

I want to believe that kind of attitude is not the majority, it's just that they're noisy so they're more noticeable.  I really do want to believe that.  Most of the time, I find it difficult.

Wiley.

Well, that's the crux. There's a difference in keeping an open mind and searching for knowledge and keeping one's mind closed and looking for support of a bias (we all have that tendency, from time to time, though - just human nature).

[Arlo]

Or you do some research on the source. Meh, nothing should be taken at face value. Assuming that something is correct because it has been used as a citation could land egg on your face.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Avoiding the egg is why I say the best research is to read the source. 'Research' on a source not read likely has it's own bias.

[Wiley]

Well, that's the crux. There's a difference in keeping an open mind and searching for knowledge and keeping one's mind closed and looking for support of a bias (we all have that tendency, from time to time, though - just human nature).

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."  has always resonated with me even though like you say, we all have that tendency.

Wiley.

[Shuffler]

Stupid people were around long before the internet and social media were around.

This is fact. Now we see more of them because they post online.

[Arlo]

This is fact. Now we see more of them because they post online.

Said in a thread online. (J/K ... I think you're quite right.)

[Shuffler]

Said in a thread online. (J/K ... I think you're quite right.)

   Don't think I did not take that into consideration when I posted. 

[Bizman]

Our leading newspaper asked several university professors, the leading experts of their branch, to evaluate Wikipedia articles of their expertise. Only Finnish, if I recall correctly. The results weren't as bad as one could have suggested. They mostly criticized the lack of depth and neutrality, the facts being basically correct. That said, half a truth can work as a lie even more effectively than an alternative truth... A tool, as Arlo said. A tool that can lead to reliable sources for those who really want to know, a tool that can give a hint about what people are talking about. I've often used it for finding out who the people in the "N.N. passed away" threads here. American baseball stars aren't too famous here...

What concerns me more than Wikipedia is that people have moved from Google to Facebook to get information and answers. Finding a FB forum of like minded and asking for their advise can fortify any belief stronger than any algorithm based on previous history. Recently I read that here in Finland the vauva.fi ("baby.com", the BBS of a baby/mother magazine) has become a leading forum for all kinds of Q&A. The previous leader was suomi24.fi which started as a dating forum... Ask anything, you'll get answered anything!

[Skuzzy]

True, Facebook is a far worse environment.

[Arlo]

For the most part, FB is a political nightmare full of trolls. Prior to my joining I never kept up with old highschool associates and friends. I'd have been blissfully ignorant of 38 years worth of formed bias.