NationStates Jolt Archive

Does it scare you that in most web based arguments people just google the topic and then throw links backwards and forwards at each other that support their view?? Scares the hell outta me...


From another post I made

The problem as I see it here is the "googlification" of knowledge.

The web is a wonderful beast, and has solved many an argument of mine over simple facts such as "What is the capital of Belarus" or "What is the largest desert in the world" (Actually even something like this can be heavily disputed). However it fails fairly miserably when it comes to discussing contentious issues. Its very hard to get any idea of what a respectable source is, or strength of numbers, or quality of evidence from a web source, especially when the pages that come up first may well not be the best available resource.

I think its a particular worry in relation to scientific arguments. Science is a not as it is often portrayed in High School a list of facts and formulae. Science is just as plagued by politics, personal agendas and simple human error as any other field. If you have any interest at all in how science is generally practised I highly recommend The Golem (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521477360/002-5431268-0803238?v=glance) , its a pretty accessible read and is from my point of view reasonably accurate in its portrayals of how science goes about its business.

Having said that the web really does make this kind of uncertainty about scientific consensus even more blatant. Even resources like New Scientist often are not particularly reflective of "real" scientific belief. Journalists are rarely well read, qualified, or concerned to report accurately or representatively on science, even in so called scientific magazines. If you are interested in scientific journalism and what you are being fed I found this article fairly entertaining: Bad Science (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.html)

Sheesh yet another thread with more antigoogle bile.


You're just jealous of its power and freedom.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050923/038237_F.shtml

Naturally, I think adding a link to provide supporting data to an argument now and then is a wonderful advantage of serious internet-based debate... But I agree that it's got to have some limits set pretty high.

I'd say "argument" by means of simply tossing links back and forth is far more troublesome than offering arguments without data to back them up.

It's not a Google specific problem. Google is a wonderful tool that is comparable to the publication of the Encylopedia Brittanica. Allowing information to be accessable to the masses.

A good point has been raised, however it is misdirected. The problem is people donot check sources anymore. Refuting the accuracy of a source is often the crack that will bring down the foundation of an arguement.

I am suprised so people use it. Back in high school, I once won a debate where I was defending Indonesia in East Timor by going after each and every major source the other side used. Plus it gives you a leg up when you call their central argument, nothing buts lies.

no i dont find it scary i find it great

when someone tosses out a link as a prime justification of their beliefs you get a real idea of where they are coming from and how sophisticated their ideas are.

the only think i dont like is lack of commentary and how incredibly slow my internet connection is.

Sheesh yet another thread with more antigoogle bile.


OK ok so I shouldn't have used that particular term. I wasn't actually ranting against Google in particular. I love it. I agree I/we would be stuffed without it, or some effective equivalent. And its a long time since I have been to library, Its more generally directed at the internet as a source of knowledge and google just happens to be most peoples portal to that.

I guess that is more what I was trying to get at. That there are so few checks and balances to the legitimacy of knowledge. No review panel. And while its great for freedom of speech, blogs and the like. Great for fan sites and advertising. Awesome for business presence and simply without peir for little discussions like this, for "fact" gathering it can be really misleading....

it has the disadvantage that everyone can have the same presence. You can have 1 guy who has spent his life working in an area put a lot of time and effort into putting up legitimate info on a topic.. lets say.. breeding guppies. You get 10 average joes who buy a guppy from the pet store and that evening put up a website. If you do a search there will be 10 sites saying the same thing .. even if its rubbish and only one that says something different. How do you know which to believe.. all you get is that there are 10 sites vs 1. Prognosis... guppy dies...

[QUOTE=Helspotistan]OK ok so I shouldn't have used that particular term. [QUOTE]
But you did. So you are either; a sensationalist, a liar or an idiot. Pick one.

[QUOTE=Helspotistan]OK ok so I shouldn't have used that particular term. [QUOTE]
But you did. So you are either; a sensationalist, a liar or an idiot. Pick one.
I think I will go with Sensationalist :) You have got to do something to get noticed.. its the way things work. If no one comes to your webpage, thread, or birthday party it makes you sad.. just the way it is....

As an aside.. what would be a better way to describe the phenomenon? Is there a commonly accepted term? I have only heard it referred to as googlification... but that's just cause I have a sheltered existence.

Does it scare you that in most web based arguments people just google the topic and then throw links backwards and forwards at each other that support their view?? Scares the hell outta me...


You're right. Superficiality rules ok.