Shoo! Get back!

The mistake people make when they talk about not being able to trust Wikipedia is in the implicit assumption that we could trust encyclopedias as infallible sources before Wikipedia.

I like Wikipedia because I know it could be wrong. Regular encyclopedias can be wrong, too, but my guard was never up in the same way with them as it is with Wikipedia. I like Internet media specifically for the reason that Aaron Sorkin doesn’t like it: because it makes it that much more difficult for me to have any illusions about the fact that the burden of critical thought is on me.

I don’t automatically trust bloggers because a group of people I’ve never met decided to give them a badge that says “reporter” on it. I don’t turn off my critical thinking because they’ve gotten to be some sort of “professional”. I have to judge them on the merits of their writing and history of thoughtfulness or thoughtlessness alone. That is a feature, not a bug, because we should never trust any news media outlet implicitly.

—

On the Internet Everyone Knows You Could Be a Dog, or Why I Think Aaron Sorkin Is Wrong About the Value of Established Media Outlets (via researchtobedone)

This quote seems to be saying:

uncredentialed writers + thoughtful readers > credentialed writers + unthoughtful readers

Which, sure, OK. But what about:

credentialed writers + thoughtful readers > uncredentialed writers + thoughtful readers

I.e., why is it a feature for EVERYONE to have to be CONSTANTLY vigilant ALL OF THE TIME? Why shouldn’t I consider it a bug that I can’t trust anything I read?

It reminds me of libertarian-style arguments against regulations: buyers in a free market will always do their own research, and choose the best sellers, which will drive out all the bad sellers! Markets! Yeah!

In theory, sure? But practically, people only have so much bandwidth to second-guess things before they need to get on with their friggin’ lives.

(via illhaveuknowthatiloveyou)