Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part I

In his blog article, "The Sleep of Reason, Part 1," Michael Gorman articulates the essence of criticism that I have long held during my "anti-Wikipedia" moments (I do, yes, tend to swing back and forth on my feelings regarding the ubiquity of Wikipedia in general and its reliability as a source of information specifically).

During my "pro-Wikipedia" moments, I tend to marvel at the way in which Wikipedia seems to successfully function: as a rather organic process of building and correcting knowledge all existing within a framework that is set out beforehand; within specific rules and guidelines as set out on Wikipedia, a source of organically- and people-created knowledge like perhaps nothing seen before by humans is sprouting up on computers around the planet.

Gorman speaks to me, then, when he notes that "The difference [between print and digital, reliability and suspicion] is not, emphatically not, in the communication technology involved. Print does not necessarily bestow authenticity, and an increasing number of digital resources do not, by themselves, reflect an increase in expertise."

It is just as possible to have faulty or plagiarized information in print as it is to have it digitally. It is not as LIKELY--because it simply is more difficult and takes more time--but it is just as POSSIBLE. Further, quantity (increases in the quantity of information of any given topic online are certainly common) does not increase reliability either.

At the end of the day, much of what Gorman points out seems to be an idea that itself rests on this important notion: with content (ideas) becoming easier and easier to both publish and access, perhaps the most important step we face as users of information and technology is to develop surefire methods of checking, authenticating, and legitimizing information.