One of the initial advantages seen from the creation of the internet was the capacity to share information and expand our learning from the input of our peers. What fascinates me about this intent is the strange deviation it has taken, and the priorities people have made for learning everything there is to know about celebrities and television shows. The internet has a vast array of interactive gossip magazines.
Advertising is taking a new approach to creating hype, and talk among consumers is becoming the new frontier for ad placement. The negative side of this new medium is a scrutinizing review audience that can destroy the reputation of a poor product. I imagine that children from the future will not be buying the x-ray specs featured in their favorite comics, and they will probably even be accessing them online.
One issue I take with the reliance on the knowledge we get from sharing is subtle and unexpected. Certain groups dedicate a lot of effort to modifying the wording of Wikipedia articles and book reviews to distort the information presented. Dr. Roberts-Miller proved Neo-Nazis did a lot of re-writing to manipulate information on both aforementioned websites by showing offensive, bigoted texts that had only good reviews on Amazon.com. In Convergence Culture by Henry Jenkins he illustrates the innumerable amount of lies on the internet by referring to the show Survivor, he says that a website could "tell you who the winner is right now and you wouldn't know whether to believe me or not" (46).
The most overwhelming advantage I see in the information age is the creation of a scrutinizing audience. Generations are only becoming more aware, and less likely to fall victim to something like a radio performance of "War of the Worlds." On the first day of class my professors emphasize that they do not accept Wikipedia as an accurate source of information, but I wonder what misinformation is leaking into our understanding of a topic when we use it as a first, comprehensive source.
Good first post, Lindsay. More Jenkins next time, though.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that shared knowledge is manipulated to push certain viewpoints, and that audiences should be more scrutinizing. But I'm not sure that the Internet has had an entirely positive impact towards making people more aware.
ReplyDeleteIt has definitely given people the ability to access a variety of viewpoints that should enable them to avoid misrepresentation and fallacy. But it also works both ways. The Internet is also a tool for those who wish to spread misinformation, propaganda, hate speech, etc.
Overall I guess I have a more cynical view towards the notion that the Internet has decreased misinformation in general, but I do acknowledge that it has great potential in making people more aware when it comes to commerce (product reviews, for example.)
I love your point about the potential for collective intelligence to be manipulated and skewed. There is certainly a new education that must go into consuming information online with a critical eye. Accepting what we read or watch online as fact without first checking it against other sources is dangerous. Our freedom of speech allows us to say whatever we want online, which is a positive thing. But we must be careful not to consume all that we read as truth and we must not attribute the title 'expert' to everyone claiming to contribute as such.
ReplyDeleteI like your point about the internet making us a more scrutinizing audience. No longer do we accept the words of those in power or even of the press. We "fact check" everyone from local leaders to the president, and some people fact check the fact checks. It's not that the internet makes there be less bad information out there, but that it gives us an effective avenue for finding out what, exactly, is the good and bad information. And it makes the average, mildly interested citizen capable of doing so.
ReplyDeleteI like how you talk about Wikipedia... gets at the tension between the expert and collective intelligence paradigms. We like the feeling of empowerment we get when we use our own wits, resources, and relationships to come up with the answers. Yet we'd also like some way of confirming that the information we're getting is sound.
ReplyDeleteI agree... the internet is full of lies. But so are some of the quote/unquote experts. There can never be any ultimate guarantee that the knowledge we're getting is the best, no matter where or whom it's from. So I guess what we need to do as knowledge "prosumers" is to do what we've always been told to do -- consider the source.
I definitely think we are more critically engaged in everything we read now, and that the internet has enabled us to learn those skills. I personally feel like my participation in online communities has affected the way I read things in class.
ReplyDelete