I wonder where we should draw a line and say “heck, there’s too much user-generated content out there; web 2.0 is too much to handle because we hadn’t even really gotten it nailed down right the first time around so we should stop.” Why am I wondering about this? Well, where are our reference points/people?
It’s great to have all this choice out there to pick from - albeit, we’re always going to have to sip through it to get to the good stuff. Sometimes we have others doing that for us - bloggers on one hand, peers through rating mechanisms on the other etc. Herein lies the problem. What makes X more credible than Y? Is it that his tastes seem to match mine? Well, that way I’m not really getting new information, am I? Nothing truly new, as it were, even if the pictures are different or the songs on a slightly different tune. The problem here does not lie in the anonymity of the network. The simple fact that I would know someone’s name or ‘real-life’ credentials does bear some importance in making a choice, but I think - truly, at least this is how I select feeds for my over-crowded RSS reader - when somebody’s done something interesting they deserve a look. In light of their past and future entries I may further gauge the relevance of their content to my own life and offer it the appropriate time.
I am looking especially for those that have opposing views to those I hold. Where the subject matter may be the same, the angle is what matters. This is what it really boils down to. Look for interesting subject matters and diverse views. Look at how arguments are made and not what they are made for or against.
The real issue is still who our reference points are. Newer generations have less parental guidance and more MySpace influence and as such little experience in the way of critical thinking. They can consume all this content easily, learn all the newest YouTube fads before they’ll be able to tell the difference between religion and faith or creationism and evolution or egoism and individualism or a myriad of other things. Are these aspects of human knowledge losing their relevance? If so, on what basis will future generations create content? I’m all for remixing and mash-ups when it comes to art but how are these derivative works adding to our collective consciousness?
Entertainment has gone from past-time to prime-time but we’re running out of entertainers.
great post! I think you’re really onto something with the distinction of how arguments are made rather than what they are being made about. And, well, I think that critical thinking, for a lot of people, is going to hell in a handbasket. This got me thinking about what we were talking about at Nu… remember that whole idea of a website (or something) that would be aimed at providing an alternative reference point? And I think it relates to HOW arguments are made and HOW information is presented. Hmm… (still pondering)
As my teacher said today “you don’t necessarily want to rely on some guy writing out of his basement in North Van who hasn’t had enough bran in his diet and is completely against MNCs and probably hasn’t gotten enough love from his parents in childhood as a reliable source of information”
This is also a fair bit of an issue with Wikipedia for example, where although the editors do undergo a serious evaluation [there was a recent scandal about one having lied about his credentials] there is also a possibility that something will go wrong.
I tend to trust Wikipedia more than some other private encyclopedia because it is harder for someone to enforce an agenda on how things are presented; but at some point I do agree there may be ‘bad spots’ in terms of the quality of content.
And most sites do not go through the hoops that Wikipedia has.
Hey!
watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....E&eurl
p.s. see you tomorrow ;)