 |
| Source |
This concern puzzles me, for it implies that information that is not online is more correct, less biased, and more easily fact-checked. These arguments also appeal to a much more traditional (and I would argue, backwards) form of authority and I have a real problem with traditional authority (scholarly journals, encyclopedias, newspapers, traditional media, etc) as the be-all end-all source of information.
From a social justice perspective, traditional authority has been the source of so much injustice in the world. Traditional authority has been composed of the privileged few, namely western wealthy white men. There was once a time when you could walk into any western library (arguably, a holding ground for authority) and know for certain that every book had been written from a wealthy white man's point of view, with few notable exceptions. I think of all the erroneous textbooks that are circulating freely in the American public school system with enormous information gaps and blindspots. The internet poses a huge challenge to this type of authority because it gives authority to anyone who participates in the creation of the "story" and gives others a chance to back them up. And don't worry, there are plenty of experts on Wikipedia. In fact, it's now considered more accurate by experts than non-experts. So, if you begin to defend traditional authority, reflect upon how your mind has been shaped by the agenda of a traditional power hierarchy that is hell-bent on keeping the rest of us quiet.
To me, the internet is no different from a library but there are a few differences (from a social justice perspective) that make the web a far superior source for trusted and accurate information:
- Greater access to more information
- Faster access to more information
- Wider variety and diversity of sources
- Opportunity to compare diverse dialogues and discussions on any given topic
- (and more importantly) Opportunity to participate in the storytelling of said topic
Don't hate! Participate, infiltrate, appreciate, repatriate, emulate!
Love it. The first thing i was thinking...and then you said it: textbooks and newspapers are full to the brim with false information. so at least on the web you're asking yourself--is this true? whose agenda does it serve? a real marketplace of ideas. you rock! c u soon, xoxoxo
ReplyDeleteI bet the people who argue for the dominance of your traditional authority are the very same ones who make those Justin Beiber comments.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I can't think of anyone who doesn't appreciate the scope and voracity of the internet when it comes to information. Sure, you can argue the legitimacy of an article, a blog post, a paper posted online, but then you whip out your iPhone and use the very same 'unreliable system' to find the nearest Taco Bell (or whatever organic snack shack you guys go to in Seattle). In all areas - published or not - there will be outspoken people who manipulate information to their advantage and people more qualified to voice their opinions who sit shyly in the corner. And, hopefully, vice versa. In all things, a balance must be found.
I think the knowledge that there IS false information on the internet just makes us work even harder to come to an informed decision. If I read a book on Orson Welles at the library (which I did) I might walk away feeling like an authority on the subject but I'm limited to the author's adaptation of the events. If I then log on to an Orson Welles forum (were that there such a place) and I read that he was addicted to black tar heroin and ate whole goats for dinner, I just might take those comments with a grain of salt and do some research to follow up (like you said, the speed of access to information is fantastic). After that I will make the choice I feel to be true.
If I have anything to say on the authority of the internet - as far as social change in concerned - it would be to criticize the lack of productive discussion and, really, action. Almost all articles and blog posts have area to comment, like I'm doing right now. Adding your voice is great and encouraged. But discussions on most comment threads start out civilized enough and then devolve to things like, 'You obviously don't know what you're talking about' or 'why don't you suck your mama's penis'. Seems like an artform has been lost. And as to the second thing, here's my philosophical question of the day: If I watch 'The Cove' which is about dolphin killing in Japan and I'm mortified and pissed off and I logon to FB or Twitter and write "Everyone needs to see The Cove - let's save the dolphins" am I really doing anything to save the dolphins? Of course, you'll say, "Yes, you're increasing people's awareness of the cause!" And I will say, is that enough? I guess my question is, is the soap-box quality of FB too cathartic that just by writing one or two sentences about a given problem, people think they have done enough? IS that enough?
That's all I got.
I just realized that Patricia already said everything I said, and in six sentences. And did it without talking about Orson Welles or penises.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments guys! Chad, you bring up a good point and something that needs to be investigated. Malcom Gladwell just had a piece in the New Yorker about this very issue. I plan to explore it in my next post.
ReplyDeleteI think Chad's note about catharsis is well-pointed: while the Internet can allow a lot more action to be taken, it also lets us lie to ourselves about the impact of our words.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Internet seems to lack authority explicitly because it relies on averaging instead of specialization. Yes, there will always (and should, in my opinion) be specialists. But instead of engaging in the prophetic mode--the idea that someone can come around with The Answer and have a totalizing solution--which Westerners love, we can use new technologies and methods to negotiate truth value.
It's an evolution of ideas. Iterative construction of truth. Telecommunication lets facts be updated in real time (and vandalized in real time, too). It's not ideal, of course--wielding rhetoric properly can instill a sense of ethos when there's no sourcing or data to back someone up. And higher-hit-densities on some websites will necessarily make them authoritative.
But letting a great number of experts hold an idea accountable necessarily exposes it to more scrutiny: it's simply harder to lie publicly when anyone can post in the same medium. And having fact checking be available at the speed of conversation makes bluffing a much riskier venture.