David Weinberger: “Open up The Britannica at random and you’re far more likely to find reliable knowledge than if you were to open up the Web at random. That’s why we don’t open up the Web at random. Instead, we rely upon a wide range of trust mechanisms, appropriate to their domain, to guide us.”
(Via George Siemens)
The problem is, Weinberger’s response is wrong.
The quote compares a particular product – Britannica – with an entire medium – the web.
The medium of which Britannica is a part – print media – is demonstrably as unreliable as the web, especially after you point out that print media includes tabloid journalism, press releases and political advertising.
The comparison should most properly be between Britannica and, say, Wikipedia. But the problem here is, if you open a random Wikipedia page, you are no less likely to find reliable knowledge.
Weinberger’s response introduces a new topic that has nothing to do with the original comparison. He is talking about how we select media. This was never the issue.
But if we’re going to talk about media selection, are ‘trust mechanisms’ the right way to characterize (a) what we actually do, and (b) what we should do?
I content neither is the case. Certainly, trust mechanisms are not operating at the moment. Very little of my selection has anything to do with, say, the reviews in Amazon or eBay. Rather, I get deluged with content – most of it spam – and pick out content I recognize to be valuable.
How do I do this? This is a clue to how we will want to work in the future. I have mechanisms I use to select content for myself – I don’t simply ‘trust’ external agencies – not even my friends or social networks.
My selection of reliable content is a matter of recognizing the types of content I find to be reliable. Good reviews, recommendations, etc. – these are only a part of it.
I am tempted to say, there is no trust. That trust is a lie.
Think about it. If you know me, you know that I am a trustworthy source – maybe as trustworthy as one gets. Suppose I am, just for the sake of argument.
Do you simply accept my argument? Do you simply agree with me? Of course not. Nor should you.
Reliability isn’t – and never was – a matter of trust.
Indeed, I would say, the day we start relying on trust to confer reliability, is the day we start allowing ourselves to be led down the garden path (with the ‘trustworthy’ authorities leading the way).
The quote is out of context. Read the entire Keen vs. Weinberger debate from the WSJ. You’ll find that you and David Weinberger have the same point of view.
I just had a discussion with our english/history teacher where she told me that she won’t let our kids use the internet for research because a “printed book is much more reliable and accurate.” I was floored, and after 30 minutes she wouldn’t admit that there was room for discussion. The sticking point for her was that on the internet there are no safeguards against inaccurate or misleading information. In her opinion, its better if we give the kids lists of resources they can use, namely books from our library.
I like how Stephen notes that the proper comparison is Britannica to Wikipedia or print media to the Web. Nicely done, Stephen. We need to guard against false comparisons.
As many have noted (including Gladwell, Godin, and Barabasi), we always have relied on word-of-mouth ‘marketing’ / trust relationships to make decisions. This has become increasingly important as the amount of information that we need to sift through has exponentially increased. Someone needs to help us sort the wheat from the chaff, find the diamond in the rough. Whether it’s an individual (e.g., Stephen) or an institution (e.g., the New York Times), we each select those to whom we listen and trust. That said, we are seeing the emergence of more ‘wisdom of crowds’ mechanisms (e.g., Digg, TripAdvisor, Amazon or Epinions product reviews) that many are trusting.
To bcarrera’s experience, I think it is important to note that the teacher that he/she was talking to is one of most who don’t understand that the teacher’s job is shifting from one who provides information to students to one who teaches students how to discern whether information they are getting is worth a squat.
Teachers who tell students that the information on the web is unreliable are not doing them any favors. Teachers who help students logically think through the process of determining the reliability of information are equipping them for success in the future on a number of levels.
To the comment that the teacher made about giving kids lists of resources they can use, this is another example of how expedience in the classroom is handicapping our kids’ thinking processes. Yikes!
Well said, Tim.
A nice intermediate step for bcarrera’s colleague might be an online database for students. Our school library has fewer and fewer print sources but offers several online databases. Such databases can introduce teachers and students to using computers for research in a more secure environment. In fact, our school librarians are at the forefront of helping teachers and students in this area. Are computers readily available at your school? Are librarians able to help teachers and students with online research? Do teachers and students receive quality training?
I, too, am an English teacher, and, as I try to use several Web 2.0 learning tools personally and with my students, safety is a big concern. I am reminded of Maslo’s Hierarchy of Needs. Just after physiological needs, like food, drink, and sleep, is the need for security. My students and I won’t be able to learn using the web if we don’t feel safe there. (Some of my students don’t have computers at home and their experience is limited to school use.) I wonder if bcarrerra’s colleague is reluctant to use the web for research with her students because of such safety concerns?
While I agree that such an attitude is irresponsible for a current English/history teacher, I do think some encouragement from administrators, librarians, and resource personnel might be very helpful. Could this teacher observe other teachers guiding students during Internet-based research or attend staff development sessions about technology?
Of course, teachers _must_ be willing to adapt and evolve.
Amen, Tim!