Wiki-gurgitation

[Karyuu]

Well, I don't consider the net that sullied of a cesspool, nor one that difficult to climb out of. My own "research" on the web was flimsy at best when I just got started, but with time you begin to understand what to look for in terms of source backing and accuracy. If the internet were our only source of information, we'd be in a pretty bad situation - luckily though we have a plethora of others, and they're not going anywhere. There are plenty of "opinion battles" online, but there is also a very good number of websites that we know can be depended on.

I don't think we are going to have global efforts to limit the overall free speech on the internet, no matter how "dirtied" it may seem. It's a big place, but we have, and are, guides to wade through it.

@Atomica: This isn't a debate..! It's a formal discussion... I'm still good!

[Under the moon]

Knowing about a subject and understanding it are two completely different things. In understanding, one can extrapolate further information and knowledge by use of common sense and reason. This is creative and critical thinking.

Knowing where to find the information is even a step below knowing about it, as it is not committed to the same thought processes, and requires less thinking, and no understanding.

I give a simple example. Say three people are going to New York. One has never been there, but looks up road maps and info as he goes without committing anything to memory. Cut off his stream of data, and he is lost. You do not need intelligence or knowledge in this case, just be good at following instructions, or spitting out data you read. Wiki-gurgitation at work.

The second has been there, and knows where things are, so does not get lost as long as he does not wander out of his area of knowledge. This is knowledge, and can come from many sources, including -yes- Wiki. One does not need intelligence to have great knowledge.

The last person may or may not have access to the first person's data stream, or the second person's knowledge. But, they can take what they do know, and extrapolate the bigger picture, thereby predicting where things might be, and being able to reason their way out of being lost. In time, they could understand the city and its workings to the point where they could design one themselves, or figure out ways to make the existing systems work better. That is intelligence.

Note: The above was written without looking up anything anywhere, and was stated just on my knowledge of people. That being said, I could be wrong.

[zanzibar]

Now, I know most people think of intelligence as people's cognitive ability, or the ability to manipulate information and make sense out of it, and that's essentially right, but ultimately that's all intelligence would be if technology like this got around - there would no longer be varying degrees of intelligence among the common people: it would be a simple division between those who understand the simple user-friendly language of wikipaedia and those who do not (and then, of course, the absolute experts and geniuses who would run wikipaedia and provide the knowledge).

Conclusion:  We should get rid of all our libraries.

Because - considering that wikipaedia got better and better over time - there wouldn't be much need for schools or training, at least on the basic level, for nearly every skill or profession would have context-sensitive on-the-fly in-depth instructions which could be accessed in minutes.

No, because as Karyuu said earlier, you can have access to a lot of information and yet not understand that information's implications and significance.  Also, it takes a lot more to be good at something than to simply have a good guide book.

The thing that bothers me is that very few humans can resist the urge to appear all-knowing, especially when all they have to do is read a few paragraphs and re-phrase them.

I haven't noticed this phenomenon.

Good points all around. Emmy's pretty much summed up (or long-winded, really ) what I meant with that 'wiki-regurgitation' comment (So I'll forgive ya for stealing it... for now). Mainly I was just amazed at how extensive Mr. Zanzibar's knowledge is, from porn to god-knows-what...

I'm a genius who is worldly.  What can I say?

[hitancrias]

Looking up things from Wikipedia and pretending you've known them form years is rather pointless. But saying "you got to believe me cause I've studied the subject for X years" is rather pointless too.

Having said that, I consider the free information flow on the internet to be nothing but a blessing. Not only because of the entertainment value, but primarily because it gives people easy access to a massive pool of information so they can develop themselves.

Of course there's a lot of nonsense on it, but I consider that something positive too. Why? Because it raises the chance that you'll find conflicting information and conflicting opinions. That in turn forces you to think for yourself. Which sources are trustworthy? What are the differences in the arguments given? Why does a website argue something, while most of the others state the opposite? You learn how to answer these questions by experience. (A Critical Thinking course may not always be available. ) It teaches people that there usually is more to each discussion than it appears on the first glance. It teaches people not to believe everything. Those are skills of extreme importance. Without those skills, you're a sheep, and you extremely vulnerable to be abused by people with charisma or authority.

War and ethnical or religious tensions are always fed with disinformation.
People are made believe that the Jews are behind 9-11 (to blame the Muslims).
People are made believe that the Americans purposefully brought AIDS to Africa to disrupt the continent and to keep them poor. (AIDS = American Invention to Discourage Sex)
People are made believe that 'blacks' are evolutionary closer to monkeys then 'whites' are.
People are made believe that the people in Africa are starving to death because they are dumb and lazy.
People are made believe that the world is less then 10,000 years old.

You can say the internet is harmful because it provides ways to distribute these forms of disinformation. That's true, but I don't consider the effect to be very big. If somebody only searches for sources that support his own opinions and biases, he is already a victim of wishful thinking and we can only hope that his search yields enough counter evidence that he'll reconsider his position.

[Parallo]

Any source of information should be approached with healthy skepticism, be it Wikipedia or a school text book. Its fine knowing effects, thats common sence, but knowing causes is what matters. Why do you put so much weight on intelligence any way? Is people having access to information not good? If you raised a child would you keep it away from school so it could learn things for itself?

[bilbous]

I am certainly one of the people who briefly glances at a wikipedia article before posting a link. Mostly I do it to see if it confirms what I already think, exists at all and has not obviously been vandalized at the moment. I do not intend to indicate that the link is somehow authoritative, it is merely a prop to whatever statement I have just made. For example in the "how is Canada seen" thread I posted a link to Fernando Poo in the context of a joke. The link there was to indicate that such an improbable place-name actually existed and not to suggest that such a place could actually wage war on Canada. That would be a case of the "exists at all" category of link. Other times I will scan the page to see if there is a quote that can be used to justify whatever point I am trying to make.

The main reason I use Wikipedia is that it is easy and fairly comprehensive in its breadth of topics, perfect for a forum like this which for a large part consists of people sitting around shooting the bull. That is not all that happens here but it does seem to be the main purpose of the Hydlaa Plaza and to a lesser extent the General Discussion fora in practice.

[emeraldfool]

Well, I don't consider the net that sullied of a cesspool, nor one that difficult to climb out of. My own "research" on the web was flimsy at best when I just got started, but with time you begin to understand what to look for in terms of source backing and accuracy. If the internet were our only source of information, we'd be in a pretty bad situation - luckily though we have a plethora of others, and they're not going anywhere. There are plenty of "opinion battles" online, but there is also a very good number of websites that we know can be depended on.

That's pretty much what I was suggesting - libraries are almost totally obsolete now; when people want to learn about something specific, there's usually 1000s of articles on anything from the Renaissance to Reasons why George Bush is the Anti-Christ on the internet, so who wants to worry about returning books and all that hassle? Even books are usually bought over Amazon.com or something, so there's no real need for them. The libraries around town are almost completely deserted here. I'd say it's only a matter of time before they go, just like bath-houses and blacksmitheries, or other obsoleted buildings from the past.

I don't think we are going to have global efforts to limit the overall free speech on the internet, no matter how "dirtied" it may seem. It's a big place, but we have, and are, guides to wade through it.

My prediction is that the internet as a whole will become so much a part of our society, that it will be treated almost like real life. Cyber crime will no longer be a 'grey area', and will be as standard a charge as Larceny, Tax Fraud, Breaking & Entering, etc.
Every online shop will have to conform to online versions of health & safety regulations (i.e. regulation anti-virus software and all that),
But more importantly, everybody will be required by law to clean-up their own garbage (i.e. useless spam), just as if they had dumped their trash-can in the middle of a scenic park.



You all laugh now, but you'll see! You'll SEE! The end is nigh!
Or something...

[lordraleigh]

     The Internet is full of BS, but censorship is far from the best solution, as it is an instrument that could be easily used to commit abuses against freedom of speech, and to turn the Internet in another corporate mass media of communication to(according to Captain Obvious): bring biased facts to support the interests of government and corporations.
     Do you read tabloids with cheap rumors about actresses? Do you watch or read ridiculously biased and manipulated media coverage? Remember, if the Internet is full of similar or worse things, it is because there are people that read them. It is here that intelligence enters: the capability to see the judge which one is closer to reality: a lies-flooded "unbiased" CNN(or any other corporate media) report on Iraq or an Indymedia admitedly leftist report on it. In the Internet you have the right to choose what kind of bias would you like to read on something(In my opinion the concept of imparciality is just an abstract and unreachable concept, there is always a point of view when an information is passed, but in some cases it is really discrete), in TV you choose where would you like to hear lies from. That's the difference, although it brings worse things then corporate media, it also brings a space for questioning the "unbiased views" of those and for countering them with opposing world views of what they wish us to believe in.
     In the end, everything depends on us, if there is a site that claims that the Middle Ages never existed for example, but everyone boycotts it, it will suddenly make its creator disappointed, until he decides to take it out. Would there be "White Power" sites and forums if no one browsed them? The Internet is a mirror of human ideas, emotions among other things, where the most "absurd" and mainstream conflict themselves, and where those not deserving of being there should simply be ignored.
     But that is far from happening, with the number of visits on sites that spread gossip about famous people, with the sales of that cheap literature, with the more cheesy conspiracy theory ever invented, called "Da Vinci Code" and with the amount of useless blogs spreading(Thanks to the "Voyeur" that is slowly becoming a mainstream tendency). But we are not forced to access them, that is what makes Internet different from TV(Where you have to choose between a limited amount of channels and consent to their programs). Then if you dislike the worst of it, you are not forced to see it(Of course there are some  spams, banners and popups around, but nothing a decent browser like firefox can't solve with some extensions).

     Books, as an way of organizing information, will never become obsolete, perhaps they may receive new forms like E-Books for example, but few places have the organization, uniformity, and consistency of a book. Most site contents are at best superficial and sometimes the informations will contradict themselves.

[zanzibar]

I hate CNN.  How dare they tell the public that the war in Iraq is going poorly?


Btw:  What Americans call leftist is most often centralist.