Slashdot Mirror
Is the Internet Your Source of Knowledge?
serutan asks: "How much do you rely on the Internet for information? Since getting online 7 or 8 years ago, I have gradually abandoned almost all other sources of news and information, to the point where they've pretty much disappeared from my life. I'm a geek, but at age 49 not exactly a child of the Information Age. I've been surrounded by dictionaries, encyclopedias and similar books for most of my life. I still read fiction in book form, but if I'm trying to look up something and can't find it online in a couple minutes I generally just blow it off, as if there's no other place to look. This realization seems sort of stunning. I'm very curious if other Slashdot readers have become dependent on the Internet to that level, and what their thoughts are on the subject."
how many of us could replace the word "Internet" in this posting with "Google"?
I use the internet for a lot of fact lookups. i.e. how do I setup so and so. Also for news headlines its a handy resources but I'm carful about opinion.s IMHO ( :) ) one of the strenghts + weakness of the internet is that anyone can put up information about anything. How do you check they are right?
This is why I still find resources such as paper encylopidias or the digtal counterparts a better resource. Also for some things such as book it is better to have paperback as you can sit out in the sun and enjoy life rather than being stuck in front of a computer screen
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I am 31 and have spent most of my life on computers. I use the internet as almost my sole source of information. I haven't been to a library in years...
But I also find the internet to be a better source of information. I can read multiple opinions, thoughts, and comments on most any topic. This gives me a better grasp of the situation then reading one book at a time.
I am not worried about this fact, I just see it as a newer way of gathering information.
-R
--Still waiting for that awsome sig to just leap out at me..--
Yes, definitely. I just started college, and my roommate brought a dictionary with him. I stopped and realized that I'd never even considered bringing a dictionary or thesaurus with me because I've got M-W.com and even a second opinion with Dictionary.com, and then some non-words that should be at PseudoDictionary.com. It simply never occurred to me to bring a hard copy of a dictionary, because I've grown so dependent on those websites.
As far as encyclopedias go, Google has basically redefined the concept of an encyclopedia for me. With a little query-practice one can find a huge number of resources for just about anything imaginable. Google's almost like an encyclopedia to a library of encyclopedias.
Later,
Patrick
If I want deep historical data, the internet isnt the place I look for it. If I want a "google" on something I'm unfamiliar with, then yeah, the internet is all I need.
I think the real issue here should be "Why are we trying to sum up all the knowledge of a subject in one or two webpages?"
My last report came from 2 books and a video. No, I didn't have to use non-internet sources. But yeah, I chose to get concrete, in depth stuff that I could use.
hmmm.. to post anon or not to post anon.. oh well I dont care.
| - | - |
I rely on the Net to provide me with a great amount of information, but I don't rely on it exclusively for any matters more important than just satisfying my curiosity.
As with other media, some Internet sources of information may be biased. Different websites may still rely on the same, possibly flawed, information. Others may intentionally attempt to spread false information.
And even when I can get accurate information, I may not be able to get all the data I need....or even if I can, I may not know exactly what to do with that information (think WebMD).
In short, the Net is a great tool for research but it is far from being a one-stop source of information. Thorough research will still require access to offline data in the form of subject matter experts and publications not available in electronic form.
I can certainly agree with the parent poster's opinion. Dead trees for in-depth knowledge.
However, I like to take it a step further. I use the Internet to choose which books to read!
An example, recently I decided to participate in the 'Employee Stock Purchasing' program where I work. After a few years of business courses, I still feel like a n00b when it comes to trading stocks, so I decided to buy some books on the basics of stock trading.
Rather than go straight to Barnes and Noble, I went to Amazon.com and read up on the customer reviews of different choices. I knew Amazon reviews can easily be skewed, but rather than just look at the overall rating, I actually read the reviews to see what people are saying. By taking the step to read the reviews, usually you can pick out the bull shiite canned reviews.
I ended up with a couple of books I decided to buy. I then headed to the book store with a list so that I could get one last look/see before plunking down my cash.
When I got home last night, I was very happy with my purchases. I usually perform the same process when picking books on just about any topic, especially development (my trade).
For research in physics the internet is definitely the way to go. Services such as Nuclear Science References and the National Nuclear Data Center make it easy to find references for particular subjects. At the same time major journals such as those published by Physical Reveiw/APS and those published by Elsiver are avalible online. If you have a subscription (or at least your university/lab does), you can frequently find articles which are not avalible in "dead tree" format. For example, Physical Reveiw has nearly (if not all) of its archives online.
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
Online, I can get the news quicker than waiting for the news or the morning paper -- and better yet, I can compare it from several different sources (thanks, Google News). I can find discussions which sometimes point me to additional sources. I can search for terms that I'm not familiar with. Plus, I'm on the computer eight hours every weekday, and the latest news is just a few keystrokes away.
On the other hand, the Internet is not so good at covering local news; I get that in my morning paper, which is actually easier to read than that same paper's website. (I live in Peoria, Illinois -- a city, but not a metropolis -- so the online news is only updated when the morning edition comes out.) It's also a little lacking when you're looking for non-contemporary topics -- the kind of thing that a good paper encyclopedia or the shelf at your local library gives you more thoroughly, because that kind of research costs money and most of the Internet is still free. More importantly, information online is often generalized and condensed, so if you're looking for in-depth facts on a particular topic, you usually need a book on just that one topic.
In short, information on the Internet is quick and broad, but rarely very deep or complete. A good trade-off in many cases, but certainly not all of them.
Back in the day, at least.
The rumors of a thousand ill-informed people do not add up to the knowledge of a single well-informed person. So be careful to verify what you read before accepting it as Truth.
And never, never trust MapQuest.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Well... isn't that really what the internet was made for? To be a network of information? Then when it was put into the public... it was made to be a place where anyone could post anything about anything. The fact that it is now such a huge source of information (and bullsh*t) is a sign of its success. I mean.. who cares who makes money on the 'net. Although I wouldn't mind if I did. ;-) But it is the fact that you can get all the legitimate information you want AND get all the crap you could ever want that makes the 'net such a good place.
Yay.
Now if only technology could some how re-direct pharmaceutical r&d into actually curing diseases (when was the last time that happened, like 50 years ago?), especially deadly ones and those found in third world countries, instead of just finding new pills for heartburn and impotence. Actually what you really want is a computer that is not a sleep deprived resident or a narcissist who is only concerned with buying their next Porsche.
Are you talking about the Web?
The Web cannot be beat for current events. It's also a great source for directory information: phone numbers, locations, maps, and the like. But it falls flat on its face for in-depth information, unless you're looking for computer and related geekery in all 31 flavors.
Are you talking about USENET?
Great place to find an expert. On anything. This expert may even take the time to talk to you. Since the advent of Google archiving, it's become easier to search newsgroups for back posts--and there is a *lot* of good data passing through USENET.
Are you talking about P2P?
Right now, it's all pr0n and thr33z. I'm not sure this is what you're talking about when you say "information."
Are you talking about subscription-based database and index services, like LEXIS-NEXIS, CompendexWeb, PUBMED, and WorldCat?
These are where the professional and research quality information is on the Internet. They are useful, but expensive, and chances are you don't have access unless you are at a university or a company that pays for a subscription.
Are you talking about intranets?
These can be a source of good information in large companies and organizations. NASA has an excellent one, some of which they mirror to the Web where it's available to all, but the really spiffy stuff is only available to employees.
So to answer your question, I use the Web to follow the news, USENET for hobby interests, P2P for pretty much nothing, databases and intranets for some professional work.
But nothing beats dead trees for in-depth information--if you can find where it's been published. I went to my thesis advisor to tell him I couldn't find a paper that had been published only in conference proceedings from the 80's (it's notoriously hard to get your hands on conference proceedings), only to have him root through a file cabinet and hand them to me. This was in 2002. Professors are scary.
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
There are great research options available on the Internet; the problem is that a lot of people think Google is one of them.
While it is useful for finding information, it is important that you realize the integrity of any source of information.
What?
It must be true, I read it on the internet!
Do you really believe that the news sites on the web have no political bias? In most cases they don't even write their own news -- they simply grab it from a newsfeed. And those "real-time" sites are even worse. Look at the FUD on places like Slashdot. Don't be so naive. It's not any better just because it's on the web.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
The evening "News" is so corporate owned and supported that I don't really consider it a reliable source for information.
Agreed. Here is an interesting experiment to try. Find a major news story, preferably on Iraq or Afganistan. (It can be something else, but Iraq and Afganistan will yield more results.)
Check the story first on CNN
Then check the subtle changes in perception on the same story from these sites:
BBC NEWS
Globe and Mail
Then note the radically different opinions on:
Aljazeera
Antiwar
Note, I am not asking you to agree with any of the above opinions, or websites. Just begin to notice the different perceptions you can gain insight to on news stories on the net. This kind of insight cannot be gathered by watching local news, like NBC, CBS, or even the "most trusted" views of CNN.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Honestly, if it weren't for the Internet, I probably would have suffered from lack of education. Here's my story.
The high school I went to was crap. It didn't focus so much on education as it did it's flagship program, Football. To the administration and school board, that was their "public relations" project. The better the football team looked, the better the school looked. Therefore, the players were placed in the higher academic brackets, while the rest of us were sequestered to the lower end.
In all reality, though, the jocks were probably getting graded on a severe curve. Text books were old and outdated. World history books ended with the first launching of the Space Shuttle. Geography still looked at Germany as two seperate nations, the Soviet Union was still a world power, and computers were still clunky-looking boxes with monochrome screens.
And teachers didn't really care about what they taught. Well, a handfull did, but most didn't. One particular math teacher would spend his time during class drawing up football plays (he is the head coach). English teachers drilled the same concepts over and over when it was clear that we all had a good grasp on the language. Science teachers cared more for learning from the outdated texts than they did giving us a hands-on approach to learning about the world around us. Hell, my Biology teacher was the stereotypical Polish idiot who did things backwards, no lie.
I looked at that place and decided that there was no way it could give me the education I needed to continue in society. So I made my mother, against her wishes, get me an connection to the Internet. And thank the maker I did.
Whatever I wanted to know, I just hit the search engines (Google wasn't yet a verb) and downloaded to my heart's content. Soon, in math class, I was using mathematical functions the head coach hadn't taught us yet to solve the problems he gave us. And the funny part was, I was the only one doing this. I distinctly remember one such conversation:
Mr. Camberg: And how did you get that conclusion, Eric?
Me: Well, if you would have taught us this method, it would have made things a hell of alot easier.
Mr. Camberg: So what you're saying, Mr. Jacobson, is that you're criticizing my teaching methods?
Me: Yes I am.
Mr. Camberg: And just how did you learn about this method, seeing as how it isn't covered in the book?
Me: Well, because the book is over a decade old, I can't trust it. So, I went looking for it on the Internet.
After that, I was sure that the Internet would save me from Rural Public School hell, and it did. Thanks to what I learned online, I was able to graduate with honors despite being in a lower academic track, and move on to college where I furthered my education with the very things that saved it: computers.
My little cousins have since moved to this area and are attending the same school I did. And I tell them to make sure they keep the Internet handy, because they're going to get a sub-standard education. They know it, I know it. And hopefully, telling them to trust in the 'Net when school fails them will be enough to help them learn for themselves that, in fact, they need to learn for themselves...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Not a pretty heading, but the Internet, though the greatest index that I have used, does have drawbacks.
They are: database rot; non-referred opinion masquarading as fact; outright flaunting of responsibility and a lack of respect of others.
Database rot - typically 2% of entries become incorrect per month. Interestingly, the cost of carrying physical inventory is deemed to be about 1-2% by the accounting profession. We won't get into what inventory turns means in databases ... ;^>
Non- referred information means that there is no scholarly agreement on the verifiable truth of facts presented. Opinions are fine, but contrast the popular Zen of anything with the scholarly work of D.T. Suzuki (who, by the way corresponded with Thomas Merton). Entire areas of knowledge require a discipline of practice and conversation just to begin to access their content.
To express an opinion, is wonderful, but to speak from experience, to the needs of the listener, in a mentoring manner, without knowing the person is a little dangerous. I personally have misspoken more then once, without realizing the harm that would come of it, in that circumstance.
Respect for other people can disappear in a mass of flameage. Hasty words often carry little wisdom. Who hasn't felt the seductive draw of flamebait?
On the other hand, as a quick overview the net can't be beaten - And I use it to cull the things I am researching. But you need a broad viewpoint, grounded in the physical reality to effectively use the internet in its' full potential.
This is progress?
I've been surrounded by dictionaries, encyclopedias and similar books for most of my life.
Here you define dictionaries, encyclopedias, and similar sources for information to exist only in book form. My guess is that these days when you want to look up a word's meaning, you still use a dictionary, except that it's online. Perhaps there should be a pair of categories; one that includes dictionareies and encyclopedias, and one that includes the ways in which they are presented. Either way what I basically want to say to you is, "don't be such a technophobe."
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
With around 425 replies so far (including trolls and flaimbait) I don't expect anyone to reade this, but I'm bored, so I'm going to write it anyway:
:)
I've become *almost* entierly dependent on the internet for news and information. Everyday, there are about a dozen sites that I load up (including slashdot, google news, and my local news paper's site) to get my news. When I want to look up information, I always spend time wading through the internet, looking for it there.
I do, however, use real books for programming (O'Reilly mostly) and physics (my text books from college). I also tune into BBC World News every evening to get my overview of world news (and it doesn't hurt that anchor girl Mishal Husain is rather attractive).
Okay. I'm gonna go do something else now.
I always think that if some old geezer new-reader like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, or Ted Koppel is reading a story to me, it must be big news.
Some points:
1. PR news stories. Newspapers, tv stations should not just parrot whatever is in a press release and treat it as news. The press release is obviously biased towards favoring its source. The facts need to be checked as well as outside experts interviewed for the news story.
2. Local newspapers covering news by taking most all stories from syndicated AP, UPI, NYT articles instead of reporting news actually dug up by the newspaper.
3. Network news is obviously biased toward parroting what is on the NYT and Washington Post front pages
4. Editorials passed off as news stories on the front page of the NYT and not even labeled as editorials. I remember when they were on a clearly marked editorial page.
5. Polls passed off as news stories. The news story should be that A, B, and C happended and by the way a poll related to ABC found that '65% of Americans think ABC is doing a bad job'. A poll passed off as a news story only exists to influence readers to agree with the poll.
6. The opionion setting crusade 'news' stories pushed by the NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, etc which are only there so that the newspaper can say it changed something. For example, the NYT crusade to pressure Augusta to accept a woman as a member. How tired are we all of a newspaper/media outlet trying to force people to change. Is this just a continual attempt to relive the 'greatness' of the media in getting people to oppose Vietnam or to force Nixon to resign. Just report the facts and let me decide.
This may be why people under 40 don't read newspapers and don't watch network news.
Being a 32 year old "computer geek" myself, I'm also finding I use the Internet as almost my only source of information for most things.
I don't get the local newspaper, for example. I do occasionally peek at the Sunday paper when I visit my parents (mainly for the advertisements). I'm sure I do miss out on a lot of "local news", but honestly - the Internet makes me realize how unimportant most of that is anyway. The newspapers and TV stations have been brainwashing us into believing we need their "fix" of local information, or else we're going to fall behind. In reality, I think I'm spending my time more wisely keeping up with bills in Congress that might affect our privacy rights, change copyright/patent law, or what-have-you, than knowing which building downtown caught fire last night, or the fact that (as usual), someone was killed in a fatal car crash on one of our highways.
Even for such things as "how to" guides for home improvement, I find better, more relevant information on the net than I do in the $20-40 books on the subject.
I've really found the net useful for learning about problems with my car and truck, too. Most problems seem to be experienced by at least a handful of other people, who talk about them on Usenet discussion groups. I may not want to do the repairs myself, but at least I can get a real good idea of what's broken - and feel like I'm not getting ripped off when they diagnose it and quote me a repair cost.
For computer or electronics purchases, there's absolutely no better method of research! Just do a Google search for "product-name opinion" or "product-name review" and you'll get everything you need to know, just about every time.
Print media takes time to produce. Internet content takes little to produce. On average, analytic content found in print is better than web-only content. Raw data is different. For example, if you want economic data, there's little sense in waiting for the BLS report to be published. Just pull it off the web. If you want something that someone has spent time on, lingered over, then you want print media.
Eventually, you realize that the Internet's best feature is the ability to find basic info. Let's say you've never heard of something, like hysteresis. Search Google for it. Use another search engine. You'll quickly find basic information. You will learn that hysteresis is an economic phenomenona with certain details, etc, etc. You will have to look very hard to find much more than basic info, however.
Content on the Internet is a mile wide and an inch deep. It's a dictionary of everything. Yet, if you want something that is in-depth, there is no easy way to find it. If there were a search engine that would give you lots and lots of in-depth info on your search terms, that would be great. That's not what we have today. Today, all you can expect is basic info.
Furthermore, on the web, you have to go looking for opinions that are contrary to yours. You have to think, "Hmm, I believe that the minimum wage should be increased, so let me go find someone's essay that argues that it should not be raised." It is really difficult and counterintuitive to think that way all the time. As a result, you tend to visit web sites with content that you tend to already agree with. In this way, your intellectual experience is sub-optimal.
Books are different. When you open a new book, you don't know what you're going to get. When you walk through a library or a bookstore, you will find books that you've never heard of. Then you will pick them up and be surprised and often challenged.
In conclusion, the web is useful as a dictionary of everything. The web is not useful as an in-depth encyclopedia of everything. Books are still the best.