By Norman E. Anderson
|
What is needed is a more constructive approach. |
Again and again I hear from teachers in both lower and higher education that they are fearful of sending their students to conduct research on the Internet because it is so difficult to sort quality information from the vast amounts of "trash" to be found there.
In general, materials that have found their way into print have at least made their way through an editorial filter. In the case of some scholarly journals, published articles have even passed through peer review. Besides, cues to quality can be gleaned by association -- the well respected author, the commercial publisher known for a certain caliber of book or a certain perspective, the university press, the professional organization, a highly selective library collection. Of course, there are also reviews, selective bibliographies, and favorable or frequent citations, all of which help guide one through the chaff to choicer material.
However, with the Internet anyone who wants to spout off can post whatever he or she wants in a matter of seconds; and many do just that, swamping the Internet not only with material devoid of academic value but material that may be misleading to the student still in the process of developing critical skills.
The usual approach to the subject is one of warning: BEWARE INTERNET USER! This is what we hear almost uniformly from the news media, and it is likewise what we often hear from educators. I suggest that what is needed is a more constructive approach, and so allow me to make a few comments in that direction.
|
A culture of print information has grown up that does not have the quest for truth, the advancement of knowledge, or the enrichment of human life as its set of goals. |
Before proceeding, several points must be made about materials that have been published in print:
|
The last three and a half decades of the Twentieth Century have been a golden age of information, a period in which nearly every discipline has seen major paradigm shifts and a considerable advancement of knowledge... However, these recent decades have also been a period in which the quest for knowledge has lost its way. |
Don't get me wrong. My view of print material is not all negative, not by a long shot. In fact, I think that the last three and a half decades of the Twentieth Century have been a golden age of information, a period in which nearly every discipline has seen major paradigm shifts and a considerable advancement of knowledge. Furthermore, an undercurrent of altruism in both the publishing industry and academia has been of immeasurable value to the world of knowledge. However, these recent decades have also been a period in which the quest for knowledge has lost its way, in part because of the overwhelming mass (or should we say morass) of information that has been produced, in part because integration and orientation to a vision of truth have dropped away, and in part because of the failure of altruism mentioned above.
|
Reading material is not for uncritical absorption. It is for critical interaction. It is not for simplistic belief, rather it is for making us think. |
Another important caveat: Despite what I said about even high caliber materials sometimes being dead wrong, I do not believe correctness versus incorrectness to be the central issue. I think it important to take seriously the old adage, "Don't believe what you read." Reading material is not for uncritical absorption. It is for critical interaction. It is not for simplistic belief, rather it is for making us think and for spurring us to engage our world in ever more sophisticated ways. However, this point applies across the board, not only to material in print but also to material on the Internet. To draw a distinction here is to adhere to a quaint notion of printed sources as believable, which has quite simply never been the case.
The point is that print materials have hardly generated the ideal environment for fair and easy evaluation and that the Internet is actually providing a vital corrective for a system that was in an advanced state of decay even as it was reaching some sort of apogee.
The Internet breaks the shackles of information control. It allows the voice that is not tied to commercialism or academia to be heard. It gives to the individual freedom of mass publication greater than has ever been known to history. It allows the suppressed to emerge.
|
It is time to drop the pretenses of the world of print. |
It is time to drop the pretenses of the world of print and to embrace the new order where the dynamics of information are freed, hopefully in such a way that unfettered pursuit of the ideals of truth, advancement of knowledge, and human enrichment can be realized.
Having said this much, we are still a far cry from having solved the problem of evaluating materials on the Internet. Fortunately that is not the goal of this piece; rather it is merely to suggest ways of approaching the question.
|
The Internet is in many ways a catalyst for social development and much of the documentation of that social development can be found there and nowhere else. |
A large part of the problem with regard to the determination of quality on the Internet can be solved by making the classic distinction between information as information and information as documentation. To give an example: So-and-so may say, "UFOs are evidence of aliens invading the earth." Patent nonsense as information, at least given our current state of knowledge. But as documentation, how interesting that that should be a frequent expression emerging out of our culture!
When it comes to documentation, the Internet is a major primary source for everything that it touches upon. Consider the short statement made above, that the Internet allows the suppressed to emerge. What an interesting psycho-social study, to find out what has been broadly suppressed in print culture that is emerging on the Internet! Consider too that the Internet is in many ways a catalyst for social development and that much of the documentation of that social development can be found there and nowhere else. For many forms of documentary research, Internet resources are absolutely essential.
Of course, selectivity on the part of the student is still a crucial matter. Indeed, the issue that is complementary to the one under discussion is how to make use of the Internet for quality research.
|
To a degree quality is a function of the use to which information is to be put. |
Treating information as documentation is just one of many uses to which information can be put.
Sometimes simple factual information is sought, such as an address or a birth date, for quite quotidian purposes; and the Internet may be the fastest way to find it. Sometimes textual or graphical information is sought for purposes of manipulation, and the Internet already has it in the form needed for such manipulation.
Certainly quality counts. A wrong address or a corrupt text won't do. But to a degree quality is a function of the use to which information is to be put, so that an accurate electronic text of Wordsworth is better than a critical printed edition for purposes, say, of syntactical analysis.
Sometimes quality is a function of definition. For instance, to set a clock accurately, one might want to consult the Directorate of Time (when its Web site is working).
Sometimes quality is a function of alternative perspectives. For example, for those working on issues of sexual identity, a valuable corrective to some of the key psychological literature is to be found on the Internet in the vocabulary lists and discussions of some of those who have personally wrestled with identity issues, for they frequently expose the cultural biases that pervade much of the psychological literature.
However, with regard to art and literature, quality is usually a function of aesthetics, to be perceived by the critical sense. This leads to the question of how the critical sense is developed.
|
Most of our critical sense comes from our experience of the good and the bad, the meaningful and the trite, the sublime and the ridiculous, the spiritual and the crass. |
It is a conceit sometimes found in the teaching profession that the critical sense is primarily taught. Now there is a lot of truth to the idea that teaching can improve the critical sense. For instance, a master bookbinder will teach an apprentice how to recognize a job well-done. But the fact is that most of our critical sense comes from our experience of the good and the bad, the meaningful and the trite, the sublime and the ridiculous, the spiritual and the crass. If something functions well, we learn to prefer it to something that does not; if it informs us about our own taste, we are grateful for our encounter with it; if it resonates within us because a universal chord has been plucked, we learn to appreciate it for linking us to a shared world; if it gives us insight that draws us out of ourselves into a more expansive world-view, we specially value it for its contribution to our lives and sensibilities; and if we have been fooled, we learn to be more careful.
The critical sense is not a matter of a university education. Rather it is fundamental to our humanity and has been so from the mists of time. This is not to say that a university education isn't valuable for the development of the critical sense. It often is. But the principal weight is upon experience as consciously and reflectively engaged.
The point is that experience in exploration of and engagement with the universe of information, including experience on the Internet, is vital to development of the critical sense and should be encouraged rather that suppressed or neglected. Only by making extensive use of the Internet will students eventually develop the acumen and discernment to find their way through Internet chaff, although guidance can certainly help.
|
With the Internet, quality from alternative sources should be specially sought out, for therein lies part of the Internet's special contribution to society and the quest for knowledge. |
One of the problems in the discussion of quality on the Internet is that some, especially some caught in a traditional mode, are blind to what might constitute quality in a new medium. An example might be discussion groups. If one takes a sampling of posted messages in such a group, the reaction is often something along these lines: "What a lot of wasted time!" However, some conversations when followed for a period result in substantive enrichment, especially in professional groups and even in some lifestyle groups.
Another area of blindness for some caught in the traditional mode is the enormous opportunity to find quality outside of traditional channels. The temptation is to apply to the Internet the same conventions for identifying quality as have been applied to print materials. But, as has been pointed out, some of these conventions rely upon a tenuous, sometimes fallacious source approach and are subject to commercial and political dynamics that are less than altruistic. Not only should purer principles of determining quality be applied, but, with the Internet, quality from alternative sources should be specially sought out, for therein lies part of the Internet's special contribution to society and the quest for knowledge.
The Internet summons us to look at quality with new eyes.
|
The notion that there is nothing on the Internet worth finding is simply not true, for some material found uniquely there rivals some of the best to be found in contemporary print sources. |
In my exploration of the Internet over the years, I have found much that I would characterize as quality material, whether for the purposes at hand or in an aesthetic sense. Naturally much that is worthwhile can be found at sites operated by what in a traditional sense would be regarded as standard sources, such as professional organizations, universities, and government agencies. However, I also find much of value at, for instance, personal Web sites. At such sites I have encountered some astonishingly fine creative work. Furthermore, some individuals have done an amazing job at the development of special interest pages. Apparently some creative types can't be bothered with the business end of publishing and are happy just to post their work, or else they use the Internet as a business medium. The notion that there is nothing on the Internet worth finding is simply not true, for some material found uniquely there rivals some of the best to be found in contemporary print sources.
I have observed that to a certain degree the Internet is self-correcting. For instance, if an error or inane remark is made in a discussion group, it will generally be corrected somewhere in the course of discussion, that is, if there is any life to the discussion at all. Furthermore, however much nonsense finds its way onto the Internet, the truth generally finds its place there and will not be shaken by the nonsense. I would like to see the self-correcting dynamic grow much stronger, but it is definitely present now in much more than an incipient form.
|
My biggest worry ... is that the dynamics of the altruistic quest for knowledge and human enrichment will fail on the Internet. |
The preceding observations do not mean that I am free of worry. Quite the contrary. To give some examples:
In that quality is mixed in with large amounts of irrelevant, useless, and sometimes deceitful information, the Internet mirrors the real world, and we need the skills to sort the good from the bad in both realms. Furthermore, those who care about truth and knowledge and human enrichment should do their best to influence the dynamic on the Internet in the direction of a good outcome.
|
There are both universal and communal dimensions to the recognition of quality. |
I just asked the older of my teenage sons, how can you tell quality on the Internet. He answered, "You can't. Decide for yourself."
I'm not quite so individualistic. I believe that there are both universal and communal dimensions to the recognition of quality. One plus one does not equal three. The quality of the math is low if someone claims otherwise. Shakespeare, Goethe, and Tolstoy engage minds and hearts in ways that few writers have matched. An individual's failure to appreciate them in no way diminishes them. It is merely a failure of appreciation.
Failing to give justice to quality on the Internet is likewise a failure of appreciation. The healthier response is to look for the opportunities that the Internet provides, paying special attention to those that it provides uniquely. The result could be the restoration of the altruistic quest for truth, knowledge, and human enrichment.
Begun, June 28, 1998; posted, July 2, 1998; new url, Janaury 28, 2004; last modification, January 28, 2004
Copyright ©1998-2004 by Norman E. Anderson
Go to main page.