Digging For Truth Online Is Up To You

An anonymous reader writes "Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has released the second annual report on obstacles to the free flow of information online. Vint Cerf wrote the forward, where he argues it is the responsibility of every citizen to test the truth of information on the Web, and draw attention to incorrect information, rather than the government's responsibility to dictate the 'truth.' ZDNet Australia has an article on the report."

Comments

apt-get truth

[Debian Troll]

If only the web was as filled with truth and integrity as apt-get, the world's favorite package management tool. The Debian project leaders should be placed in charge of the Internet.

Thankyou.

Re:Holy shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! This sort of thing always cracks me up. Like reading reports from scientists proving, after months/years of research, that alcohol makes people aggressive, men are attracted to attractive women etc.

Not True?

[KingArthur10]

WHA!? You mean everything I read on the net isn't true? *gasp* My world is crumbling before me. Now the trick is, how can you always tell if it is true or not? Heck, my mother, a 7-8th grade advanced science teacher did a test with the class showing them an online article about the evils of hydrogen hydroxide. At the end of the class, over half the class believed that there was a serious problem in the world with hydrogen hydroxide that needs to be dealt with. Only one student in the class knew the truth of what hydrogen hydroxide really is: water. Now, if we can so easily be tricked into believing water is evil, how the heck are we suppose to be aware of what is true or not? Make a professional looking page and sound smart, and the masses will follow! Just a thought

Re:Not True?

[DaveHowe]

Unfortunately, there are two sorts of "product" that are suited to the commercial world that awaits you outside of schooling.
The first type is a cookie-cut worker who will put in his 9-5 for minimum wage (without even thinking the word "union") then take his pay and spend it on whatever fad advertising tells him he can't live without
The second type goes on to university, performs useful research and/or innovates to fuel the next generation of fads (under the exclusive contract-locked control of the market leaders in those areas of course - which is why universities are so keen on retaining patents or copyright to work done by the students *paying* to be there)

There seems to be absolutely no attempt to promote the second type - perhaps those pushing for more corporate involvement assume that those who actually can think will manage to do so anyhow, and they can concentrate on "optimising" the development of the rest of the crowd into the former type?

Being critical

[Arioch of Chaos]

I know several teachers who have a hard time getting their pupils to understand that information they find on the internet is not necessarily acurate. Teaching people to be critical is a majour task for schools, I think.

Re:Being critical

[Guppy06]

"Teaching people to be critical is a majour task for schools, I think."

Most teachers and schools I can think of would rather their students not be too critical. They'd rather have a room of docile students that jot down everything their teacher says than to have them ask too many questions.

Re:Being critical

[Surak]

Yup. Bottom line: people need to learn critical thinking skills. I think everyone should be required to pass at least one college-level critical thinking class.

You need a bullshit detector, and that's what critical thinking skills provide for you.

You also need a healthy dose of skepticism. Most of us Slashdotters (well, the non-posers anyway) are the people who have lived the online experience before it became commercialized. We almost inherently KNOW to look at things skeptically. Look at every article on /.. There's always more than a few people out there to cry "bullshit" when it's warranted. We don't believe everything we see on TV, and we don't believe everything we see on the Net.

But that's one of the inherent problems in American society. It was on TV, so it must be true! That's transforming into "I saw it on the Net, therefore it must be true!"

For every piece of truth you'll find on the Net, you'll find at least two pieces of complete, total utter bullshit. It's up to the reader to decide for him/herself what's truth and what's just something some idiot is spouting out off about he either doesn't understand -- or worse -- that he does understand but is trying to manipulate you into agreeing with him or even worse giving him money.

Don't buy it. Wear your bullshit detector. And if you don't have one get one. I highly recommend Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by Browne and Keeley. It was the text I used in college, and is still used in many, many college critical thinking classes.

Re:Being critical

[wiggen]

Actually, most teacher and schools *I* can think of (and as a former school district administrator, I have worked with many) wish their students would be more critical. Unfortunately, though, unfunded mandates such as the "No Child Left Behind" act in the US require just the opposite. We are now required to judge our teachers and schools on how they perform on tests that have been developed by central authorities, working under the mandates of politicians. These "high stakes" tests do anything but demand critical thinking skills.

As one teacher I know put it, "I became an English teacher because I love Shakespeare. Most of my students used to love Shakespeare. Now that we have the standardized tests, the only thing we do in English Literature is study Act 2, Scene 3 of Romeo and Juliet which is the scene the standardized test will cover. My students know the scene backwards and forwards. We have studied the word counts. We have studied the characters and their motivations. We act it out, day in and day out. We eat and sleep Act 2, Scene 3. My students hate Shakespeare. I hate Shakespeare. But, we pass the test and score better than just about any school, all because we are judged by the government on this one test. But what it comes down to is, mandates ensure that I no longer have students who love Shakespeare."

Mandates from "on high" often stifle creative thinking, usually because they narrowly define knowledge deemed important by the politicians who control the process. Politicians don't want critical thinking among the populace.

Just on the web?

[DaveHowe]

Given the extent to which various forces act on the big commercial media companies, Surely it makes more sense to doubt almost all media coverage in isolation? compare Fox/CNN with Indymedia with the BBC with various web blogs from people who are *there* and then come to your own conclusions.... each of those sources will be biassed (either by the opinions of their owners or their governments) but by comparing enough sources you might find a germ of truth somewhere....

Public monitoring of accuracy - right here

[thelandp]

Slashdot is a good example of the public taking a role in providing feedback on the quality of information.

The internet's strength - it gives everyone a voice - is also it's weakness because there is too much noise.

Filtering the signal from the noise is the challenge, and it's one the government is not up to.

Re:Government control of speech on the internet

[DaveHowe]

That isn't entirely a bad thing - There is draft European legislation to mandate that - if requested, any web page or blog entry be amended to include a link to the requester's counter-comment.
I suggest the text "And if you want to know what PR-spun bullshit this firm uses to justify this, click >here" be used :)

Re:Government control of speech on the internet

[kinnell]

The government wants to implement the same rules that govern the professional print media to each and every internet post of a private citizen, including all the sanctions associated with a possible "breach

The reason these kinds of law exist is not because the media are making money, but because a large number of people may read what they print. Without such laws, successful papers could use their power at will against third parties. In what way is a popular blogger in any way different? Or any non-profit website? Publishing is publishing, and if you are publishing on the internet, why shouldn't you be bound by laws which cover publishing conventional media?

Free Media

[Heartz]

With media like CNN throwing blind support behind the government policies in the USA, free media even have any more meaning? It seems like the American media is under tremendous pressure to appear patriotic rather than objective.

---
SuaraMalaysia.com - Driving free speech initiatives in Malaysia

Slashdot has needed

[Idimmu Xul]

+1 True / -1 False for a long time, as none of the other moderations really fit, when someone is doing their best to be insightful or informative but is just getting it all wrong. As if you have already modded the thread, you cant reply to point out their inaccuracies :/

Re:Government control of speech on the internet

[xutopia]

So yeah make people dialogue rather than have monologues is bad for critical thinking right?

Maybe Germany should stop doing those kinds of efforts and do like they did just before Hitler came to power. Have all media more patriotic than the other in a time their mark was loosing grounds to other currencies, when their country was living a recession (wait a minute isn't that what is happening in the US right now???). Damn I just had a thought and that isn't popular right now.

I better go watch CNN so my brain is too numb to think. I wouldn't want thoughts in my head about how uncanny things are.

Orwell and Bradbury

[Crispy Critters]

There was a piece in the Sunday NYT WiR complaining about overzealous use of the word "Orwellian" (also that it refers to what the author described rather than what he espoused, but that is a separate issue). A main point was that every minor restriction in access to information or political euphemism should not be compared to the total control of language and information in 1984.

When I recently reread Farhenheit 451, I caught a detail that I never paid attention to before. The firemen did not start burning books because the government wanted to eliminate them. The people demanded that thought-provoking, controversial and therefore disruptive works be destroyed. For any book, you could find some group who was bothered by it, so all books came under the kerosene.

I see aspects of a sort of reverse-Orwellian society today. Varied viewpoints and honest criticism may be available, but most people don't want to hear them, any more than Bradbury's society wanted their books. Given the choice between the happy myth and reality, people will choose the myth. How many Americans care about the truth of Iraqi WMD's, the Lynch "rescue", or whether Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks? Or that fuel cells are not an energy source? Far too few for my comfort.

This is worse than 1984, which envisions domination under an authoritarian government (as I remember; it has been a while). You don't have to beat down the people. Just tell the people the lies they want to hear, and they will do the rest. Whatever contradicts what people already want to believe will be ignored.

This is something fascinating about information access and the internet. The net does not serve to widely disseminate information, except in the most literal geographic sense. Instead, it allows people to form communities with others who already share the same opinions. Memes bounce around in a mostly closed community, building up power and credibility.

I can think of one concrete example. I received a forwarded email in 2000 of stupid statements allegedly made by Al Gore. I replied with an email from 1992 with the same set of quotes, but attributed to Dan Quayle. Did the original sender feel humiliated and send an apologetic retraction to everyone he had forwarded the message to? Of course not. The truth was easily available, but they liked the lie better.