In yesterday's Style section of the Washington Post there was an article by Monica Hesse, "Can You Handle It? Truth, Better Yet: Do You Know It When You See It?" The main thrust of the article is how people believe things even when they hear them denied, and how misinformation is everywhere, especially on the internet in Wikipedia and blogs, and so forth. But, what concerned me more than this obvious, point, is that students are apparently seriously using only the internet, especially Wikipedia, and abandoning libraries and the reading of books in droves.
I am more aware of this than usual, being in the middle of grading term papers, and seeing ones with nothing but websites with incomprehensible names as sources. Quotes from students in the article make it clear that many find it annoying when a professor demands that they use a book as a source, and many think Wikipedia is a fully sufficient source, and many never set foot in a library. Yes, Wikipedia does not do too badly compared to Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 4 found errors for every 3 in EBO, but Wikipedia remains subject to interested parties manipulating it for truthiness or wikiality, with the resulting misinformation getting spread far and wide and widely believed. Just how many people think that Iran is out to get nuclear weapons and that al Qaeda was involved in 9/11? And if you read Wikipedia entries about guns, they look like they were written by John Lott or his buddies.
16 comments:
Yes, BUT... books (or journal articles) are no guarantee of truth. Especially textbooks. And, as for "critical thinking", most students gather from it precisely enough technique to make them more critical of views they don't hold and thus more confident that their own prejudices are right.
Interesting topic. My brother says the Wikipedia entry on the turkey (when he read it) gave the high end weight of a tom in kilos. He converted, and it came out as 120 pounds. That is quite a turkey. How does one find information, if one doesn't already know a lot? Start with a class reading list and work out? Obviously, a fair number of people do learn to read and listen critically, so it can be done.
That turkey must've been stuffed, eleanor.
S-man,
Those of us who demand that students cite at least one book in their papers do not generally accept citing a textbook as sufficient, for which the problem you raise can be real (as can be true of any published source, indeed, although journal articles are generally more carefully vetted than either books or internet postings). Indeed, a student can cite the textbook of their course without going to the library, even if they plan to sell the book back right at the end of the semester so that they can maintain an uncluttered shelfspace.
Barkley
Yes, Wikipedia does not do too badly compared to Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 4 found errors for every 3 in EBO, but Wikipedia remains subject to interested parties manipulating it for truthiness or wikiality, with the resulting misinformation getting spread far and wide and widely believed.
Just ask Chip Berlet! He has been battling the LaRouchites for years there trying to stop them from sanitizing the articles on him! Libertarians are also active on wikipedia pushing all sorts of marginal claims, especially regarding economics and fascism.
Interesting questions and concepts; ones that I've grappled with on almost a daily basis.
I think the sad reality is that the human race may be no closer to the truth than when historians and textbook publishers had a monopoly on the info. I'm one of the most skeptical people I know, and I've been duped online more than once.
"but Wikipedia remains subject to interested parties manipulating it for truthiness or wikiality, with the resulting misinformation getting spread far and wide and widely believed..."
I'm constantly struggling to reform the Wikipedia site that lists the 'reserved' areas of Tasmania. Almost everytime I try to edit the site someone comes along and waters the whole thing down. Also, the site fails to incorporate a definition of the word 'reserve', as does the Tasmanian state and Australian Federal Governments, for that matter.
Fail all those folk who refuse to read books, Barkley!
PS: I have a new email address. Will send details later when I'm not so rushed.
"but Wikipedia remains subject to interested parties manipulating it for truthiness or wikiality, with the resulting misinformation getting spread far and wide and widely believed..."
I'm constantly struggling to reform the Wikipedia site that lists the 'reserved' areas of Tasmania. Almost everytime I try to edit the site someone comes along and waters the whole thing down. Also, the site fails to incorporate a definition of the word 'reserve', as does the Tasmanian state and Australian Federal Governments, for that matter.
Fail all those folk who refuse to read books, Barkley!
PS: I have a new email address. Will send details later when I'm not so rushed.
So when you run into an error in a book from the library, what do you do? Correct it on the page in pencil?
Those wild-eyed libertarians are free to write their own books too, you know, and many have which sit on the library shelves. But those uneditable versions of the "truth" would be a-ok with professors who just hate the idea of using an online source.
BTW, the turkey article says the top weight is 38 lb. The great thing about Wikipedia is that if there's an error you can correct it, or at least challenge it on the discussion page for each article.
Actually, despite what it sounds like, I do not require that students cite a book. For some papers this is not appropriate, and I am fully aware that books can be biased. I always warn students to keep their eyes peeled for such biases. I tend to favor journal articles over books, again depending on the topic, most of which, but not all, can be accessed through the internet.
Yes, some errors can be corrected on Wikipedia, but there are some sites where special interest groups have simply taken over and it is impossible to dislodge them. The entries on guns are clearly controlled by the National Rifle Association and its flunkies and fellow travelers. You will find nothing positive at all about any form of gun control there, none. It is all bad. And, I suspect any effort to change that will instantly be changed back by gun-toting fanatics.
Hence, truthiness and wikiality.
Barkley
You may be interested in the new book: "True Enough" by Farhad Manjoo.
Here's a link to a description:
http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9780470050101-1
The author's thesis is that modern media makes it easier than ever to lie to the public. While this may be true, I think he tends to ignore how the scarcity of information sources aided deception in the past. To cite two parallel cases: "Remember the Maine" - traditional yellow journalism and the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" - brodacast and print media.
Neither happened, both were used as justifications for going to war, war fever was promoted by the media.
Well I worked for a couple of decades in a major research library (UC Berkeley, at the time and maybe now the biggest such public research library west of the Mississippi) and I can tell you for your that 'bookiness' does not equate to 'truth' and that much of this is by design, if people were citing books or articles then it was our collective job to supply them to professors and researchers. If this meant buying or borrowing thinly sourced works well 'Caveat lector'.
It is a mistake to put 'library' and 'internet' in opposition. The reality is that some people go to the library to use the internet and some people go to the internet to use the library. There are a variety of projects going on know that seek to make all public domain and open source books online, the existence of cheap large high quality monitors at home combined with the advent of portable high screen quality portable readers may well transform the academic book as we know it today.
Along those lines it is time to break the hegemony of the private for profit journal publishers. First of all they are monopolistic, by the nineties almost all of the scientific journals were being published by two European firms. Universities were paying professors to write articles, often paying to submit them, then paying the professors doing the peer review, often enough paying a salary to the guy who edited the journal, and then called upon to pay subscriptions that range into the thousands (for the more specialized niche science areas) all collectively to just buy their own research back.
Hopefully some progress has been made on this front since I left academic library work in 1993. It was absurd to have the serials librarians forced to cut a dozen $40 a year membership publication (typical of history and the liberal arts) to maintain a single scientific journal used by a tiny handful of specialists. I am not saying these scientists shouldn't have full access to the material, on the other hand they need to know that certain publishers are raping the libraries on the time honored basis of 'because we can'.
Similar things can be said about text books. It makes some sense for elementary school kids to be using hardback books with plenty of glossy illustrations. Kids are hard on books and these may need to be used for years. But the logic changes as you move up the age ladder. There is no reason at all that your standard Accounting or Economics or Psychology textbooks couldn't be printed in trade paperback format at huge savings rather than in heavy hardbook form, to have the latter be the default is simply to aid and enable predatory textbook publishers surely the kickbacks, er, er oh yeah 'royalties' can't be that good. Maybe things have changed on this front as well, didn't seem so last time I wondered though the U of Wash bookstore.
"the advent of portable high screen quality portable readers ..."
Where, Bruce??
http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons-Wireless-Reading-Device/dp/B000FI73MA
Some people love this device, others think it somewhat lacking. I don't have one but Paul Krugman does and seems to like it enough to read a book in bed with it. (See April 30 blog post)
The main problem so far is inventory, they can't keep them in stock, though Amazon claims they have them now. There are also issues about how tight Amazon will be able to maintain proprietary control over content but like the Sony Walkman back in the day now that it has been shown that it can be done any attempt at too tight restriction will just allow competitors to walk around.
And speaking of truthiness, the article was in the Washington Post, fercrissake. New media may make it easier than ever to lie but it also makes it easier to dig behind the lies. That's not a zero sum.
Thanks for the link to the reader, Bruce.
[btw, I've always had a suspicion that Paul Krugman did that sort of thing in bed.]
Post a Comment