Abstract
When accessing the internet for information, one must be aware that there is bias. Whether one is researching the web for the purpose of academia or simply to gain information as a consumer, one must be, or should be, aware of motive. The person posting has a motive, be it as simple to inform or misinform for the purpose of persuasion or purchase. It is therefore up to the researcher or consumer to then eliminate the suspect behind the post.
Discussion
Mike Shermer’s blog describes his Baloney Detection Kit. The information is both useful and easy to use in discriminating the motive behind the post. Alan November’s Youtube video illustrates the need for parents to be aware of what their children are researching on the web, for purposes of academia. (That thought easily translates to the parent’s use of the internet as well.)
It seems self-evident that anyone using the web should verify the information for authenticity, be it the student or the teacher. Should this be the same for consumers (which includes the academic world who are consuming the information and by virtue producing in sharing).
However, where is the responsibility? Should not those who post share some responsibility for the veracity of their information? If not should there not be a policing agent (besides the consumer) to protect the consumer?
I suspect I want a police force in part because of the time that now must be involved in verifying the material, both its source and its content. Why shouldn’t the poster be held responsible by some internet “police” force for content and authenticity? I ask also because if people are not aware of this issue, if they haven’t seen Alan November’s video, the consumer is left unaware and the student is left consuming and producing the product. If the parent or the school system does not validate the source and information, misinformation is spread and the sleeper effect also comes into play. “I read that somewhere, so it must be true.”
While I both enjoyed and appreciated Mike Shermer’s video, I was left with a disconcerting realization. His video appeared after the logo for Richard Dawkins’ institute. Curiosity led me to click on the video that shared the screen and I watched an interview of Richard Dawkins discussing his book The God Delusion. Now, I am not going to get into a religious discussion, but it seems disquieting that a man who is showing us how to detect baloney on the web is linked to a man’s foundation that has a strong bias regarding the presence of God. ( Is this a crime scene?) I have only viewed the one video, therefore, it must be on me to to do further policing regarding both Richard Dawkins’ viewpoint and Mike Shermer’s allegiance to him.
In conclusion the ultimate responsibility regarding the product is the consumer; the final determination of the motive is the person examining it. I would still like to entertain the idea of a so called web police force that had the task of uncovering the motive and the suspect, particularly for younger consumers. When they can pull up a web page on Martin Luther King that fronts as a legitimate space, then there needs to be another task force verifying the information. Since I am a huge fan of mystery novels and love the idea of being a detective (but not too keen on the idea of chasing, subduing and sitting in a car for hours with donuts--can we say stereotype and bias here?), this may be the future I was looking for.
References:
Dawkins, R. (2007). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMqTEfeqvmM
November, Alan (2007). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVLS_rlwnwI
November, Alan (2010). Retrieved from, http://novemberlearning.com/resources/information-literacy-resources/v-find-the-publisher-of-a-website/
No comments:
Post a Comment