Even though this blog is written so that anybody can enjoy its content, I don’t think anybody does. It really don’t care, but I know people in my writing for the web class are required to read this blog so its topic related to class and pop culture.
I ran across this commentary article on CSMonitor.com
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p17s01-stct.html, and it immediately interest me because it address some of the questions that people have about trusting content on the Internet.
For any person that has used the web for anything academic or informational, the web has always been the realm of “buyer beware.” Since any person can post to the Internet the information can’t be trusted.
But Regan, the author of the column, sees the Internet evolving past that point. Sure the random content still exists, but we don’t consume it unless it passes through some filters.
Regan talks about:
Digg.com
Reddit.com
Slashdot.com
These sites keep track of user’s approval for articles. Through popularity articles are more trusted and of course consumed. Regan said, “The choices of the accumulated community are seen as more trustworthy than the "gatekeeper" model of traditional news and information.”
I feel like the Internet has always been criticized for non-reliable information, but those that think the Internet is a gigantic hodge-podge of worthless information are not seeing the webs ultimate evolution.
The reality is, millions of people police the web in the name of accuracy in information. Those that don’t believe in this silent mass only need to post incorrect information to an open source site like Wikipedia. You’ll find incorrect posting are changed, many times within minutes, after original posting.
Regan even quotes a familiar name to our writing for the web class,
“Why? Because for most reporters covering a big sprawling beat, it's still true what Dan Gillmor, the first newspaper blogger [said]: 'My readers know more than I do.' And it's still the case that tapping into that knowledge is becoming more practical because of the Internet."
For all the critics, the very fact people can post to the Internet might be closer to finding reliable information than going to traditional sources. I think it is pretty obvious that what we now think of the Internet in terms reliable information might start to change, I know that I’m pretty excited.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with you, as the internet continues to evolve and more people gain access, the credibility of information will change. Also, the admins of sites like wikipedia have a process each change goes through before it becomes "official" and there are various disclaimers on recently updated sites. I use wikipedia, and consider it mostly reliable because more often than not there are at least 10 sources as to where the information came from that I can fact check for myself.
Great blog. :)
Post a Comment