Not sure if anyone read this from MSNBC. It made me think about some of our discussions where we debated whether pandering to the digital natives with hypertext minds was a worthwhile effort. This article talks about the wisdom of the crowds vs the devaluation of the quality and depth of reporting and information from an expert.
Is there a middle way? Read to find out, :-).
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Yin, thanks for this post! My answer is, "Yes, and, no."
I love the fact that this side of the argument is out there from a technorati.
I love the stir and strong reaction it has generated.
But perhaps the point is lost - as it seems those who are passionate enough about beating up on the author and the book - those folks are not the big majority of people who are using the internet for superficial information, entertainment, and who don't critically consume information - so the argument falls on deaf ears.
There is something to this argument - and it is painfully apparent when I get links to things that many people in my circle of family and friends believe are true - scams, legends, etc. These are the majority! I don't think less of them, but they are not expert information consumers. They are influenced by the "holy crap" / simplification of socially generated content and information exchange.
I think the author intended for this backlash and may have been disappointed that it didn't get even more heated and visible press.
tc
Post a Comment