All projects: Gel, Jobs, Good Todo, Games, Uncle Mark, Blog, Bit Literacy
Finding the authoritative voice online
Part of bit literacy is distinguishing between reliable and unreliable sources online. Often called "Internet literacy," it's one (but not the only!) essential skill in the management of a media diet.
This Salon interview with the author of Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History, caught my eye as it describes the situation well. Excerpt:
Q - On the Internet, it can often be very difficult to tell what's true and what's not. Do you think the Web is helping these conspiracy theories become more popular?A - The Internet is a gigantic version of what they faced in the 1920s, when the first widely distributed pamphlets about "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" came out. They were cheap and easily available. It was an age of increasing literacy. It prefigured what we have on a much bigger scale now. It was hard in these circumstances to distinguish the authoritative from the quack. It's like medicine in the Wild West: There are some doctors around, but there are a lot of people on strange wagons saying they can cure your blindness.
We always had this problem to a degree, but what the Internet has done is revolutionized the amount of information. We know that Google operates on an algorithm that tells you what's popular, but it seems to be telling you what's authoritative.
See also: Bit Literacy
Interesting post. Another thing that comes to my mind is that more people can have a voice now, in a broad range from 'trolls' too 'conspiracy theory believers'. That is not neceserally bad - the only thing is that we have to teach people that what you read on the internet is not always true (wikipedia entries for example).
I am struck how expert-centric the post is. Why would Mark feature it ? It contradicts his basic take on consumer-centric.
Note Fred saying 'we have to teach people'. Wasn't it the people were going to teach us ?
And finally, everything you hear and see is not always true. In that sense there is nothing remarkable about the situation on the Internet. It's much harder for experts to control that medium, though. And that may be their beef.
The term 'authoritative' is revealing in that context. How is individual judgement strengthened by a focus on finding 'authoritative' statements ?
It's like investigative journalism, getting at the real truth. I take it that by 'authoritative' is meant expert, reliable, authentic, accurate, true, real. Since we cannot verify every single piece of information first-hand at its source, we have to depend on intermediaries to pass it along uncontaminated by agendas seeking to mislead us. And information received is further altered through the alchemy of our own perceptions and preferences. We need an objective "guardian meme" for all received data; it's called a reality check. "I have spoken." "I tell you three times." "Amen."