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."

Comments

Dead trees are still the way to be

[bluethundr]

For news, and timely information certainly the internet is the place I turn. The evening "News" is so corporate owned and supported that I don't really consider it a reliable source for information. Besides, I don't really know exactly what I get out of keeping up with how many people were murdered or died in fires in the tri-state NY metro area (there is a LOT of that on the news). So, I've just stopped watching. I was never much of a newspaper reader, but of course there is always the New York Times and many other newspapers that bring the information to you with a nice bow on it so you don't have to go scouring elsewhere. But if scouring is your style and you are a real information junky, the scouring certainly isn't that hard.

But if I am going to learn anything in-depth certainly books -dead tree media- is the way to be. My upper limit of reading an article on the crt is about 10 pages. Your mileage will vary there, of course it's highly individual. But maybe that's why places where the information is in digested for you allowing you to scan many stories at once and sample them all, because lengthy readings on a computer monitor are more tedious than kicking back and reading a book.

Re:Dead trees are still the way to be

[pudding7]

Exactly. For quick, one-off type stuff the Interweb can't be beat. I have no idea how I ever planned a vacation, found a movie, got directions, bought airline tickets, or hooked up with others who share my interests before the internet. On the other hand, I can only read so many 10 page Wired articles before I just want to buy a book.

Re:Dead trees are still the way to be

[Mr Teddy Bear]

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.

I don't know.

[hkon]

Google says: Your search - "is the internet my source of knowledge?" - did not match any documents.

Google

[ucsckevin]

how many of us could replace the word "Internet" in this posting with "Google"?

Advantages and disadvantages

[mblase]

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.

Primary Source of News but Not the Rest

[jak163]

The big moments were nytimes.com and news.google.com. As you go back in time it gets harder and harder, however. If you want to learn about steelworkers in the 1890s, you're better off going to the library.

I think overreliance on the Internet for information is why so many tech stocks bubbled and why so many techies are so insensitive to the effects of technology on people, as well as a sort of social darwinist ideology that the free market correlates perfectly with ability (even at the same time as M$ is bashed albeit often for anti-free market principles) or with public taste. If you don't see it on the screen, it doesn't happen.

That and getting information from games like SimCity (software is the cleanest and highest value of all industries) and Civilization (limited liability is an important moment of progress). The general conclusion is that corporate expansion and economic growth means greater efficiency, which is the way that all people become better off. This seems so self evident based on most of the information you get from the Internet that as soon as I write it I realize that the mere questioning of it will seem absurd to most people. The fact that the vast majority of people in human history did not believe this to be true is something you would have very little indication of from the informatoin available from the Internet. That is to say that the Internet is suffused with a Taylorist, efficiency based ideology.

Re:Funny, we used to call it "The Net of 1,000 Lie

[stratjakt]

I recall a time a friend was going to come visit me. I spoke to him on the phone, and started to give him directions from the main highway. It went thusly:

Me: Ok, take the HWY eastbound until you cross the toll bridge, then take the first exit and...

Him: No I looked it up on MapQuest.

Me: MapQuest has our area all screwed up, just write this down, take the first exit, go straight, take the second right and...

Him: nah, I already printed the maps out on mapquest

So, the day comes when he's coming over. I get a call..

Him: Hey, I can't find your house.

Me: Where are you?

Him: I'm at a WalMart

Me: WalMart? What city are you in?

Him: [name of city and closest street sign]

Me: Dude, you passed my street about 75 miles ago. Turn around, go back, take the last exit before the bridge and..

Him: No, that's wrong, MapQuest says..

Me: I FUCKING KNOW WHERE I LIVE!

Him: But but mapquest! ....

Though, as long as you stick to the more travelled areas, and get directions to businesses, MapQuest more or less comes through. It's just the rural and residential streets it sucks at...

Try a Corporate News Experiment:

[Mr. Flibble]

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.

My 0.02 Euros...

[paploo]

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.