Internet Information Evolution

Home

As I read the newspaper on my way into work on the train this morning, I got to thinking about just how much the internet has changed the way in which I process information. Until I was in high school, the only way to find information for a project was to use the library card catalog (which had actual, physical "cards"), or the encyclopedia (or Encarta if the one computer that had it wasn't being used). Searching by "keyword" was just about impossible, and finding the three "required" sources for a project was actually difficult. If I wanted to research something obscure, I might not be able to find any information at all.

My first information revolution was when my school computerized their catalog. Suddenly I could look for information by topic, using AND, OR and NEAR. Not only was I able to turn up more information, that information was much more relevant.

Now, I sit at my computer and I have instant access to far more information than I ever did at my school library. To write a single opinion article on my website, I usually link to two or three other articles but I usually read ten times that many sites for background information. The kids who are growing up with this kind of access to information, the problem isn't finding it, it's filtering. There's so much that a person quickly needs to develop criteria for deciding what information is credible, what information makes sense, and what information to use.

These questions as to what sources of information are credible extend to sources beyond the internet, however. When I was younger, it used to be that I could cite an article in a newspaper and get away with it. Now, when I read the newspaper on the train I make mental notes to myself of what I want to know more about. I don't trust newspapers anymore, at least on their own, because newspapers lie and have agendas just like any nutjob like myself who has a website. I like to read four or five or ten articles on the same subject from vastly different sources to try to come to some conclusion as to what I think about an issue.

This strategy is working for me at the moment. Search engines help keep more reputable sources above the true wing-nut sites. I'm starting to get addicted to Google News because of the way it indexes and consolidates many different news sources that are all carrying a certain story.

I truly don't know what's going to happen in the near future. I get the sense that there's a huge explosion in the number of personal blogs. I guess there's something really attractive about having your own personal soap-box in a corner of the web. I know I fell for it.

I don't dare make any specific predictions, but it seems to me that the influence of "renegade" bloggers is going to grow. Just look at DailyKos or Eschaton who are both occasionally mentioned in the "mainstream" media these days.

It seems to me that the reporting of news will still be in the hands of traditional news outlets for the forseeable future, but that the analysis of that news will continue to become even more decentralized.

Internet

HTML
Submitted by thinksinpictures on 17 June, 2004 - 1:14pm.

Sorry to interrupt the usually seamless flow from article to on-topic comments, but you've got a couple little HTML problems that need tending toward the end of this one. Looking at your source, it looks to me that the main problem is a missing closing quote in the last anchor tag. I also saw an extra quote before 'mainstream' with no closer and an extra one of those pacman-brackets that are used to define HTML tigs but I don't know what to call.

What do you call those?

ANYWAY, another interesting change is that the Internet allows people to start not only their own weblogs, but their own anything. I could buy a domain name and hosting and start an encyclopedia if I wanted to. It might have a dearth of artcles for a long time, but I could make it look really professional, and the few articles that were there might seem to have some credibility. But I could also have written them all myself, with little research, and they could be full of mistakes or even lies.

At the same time, I won't argue that meatspace media could always be judged as a class. I remember even before Al Gore took initiative in creating the Internet*, telling my parents that our newspaper, the Daily News, was a drivel and that we ought to be getting the Los Angeles Times. The Daily News remains the most appropriate thing in their house to wipe your ass with, and they both still read it every morning. The Times is far from the end-all, but at least it doesn't give me a headache.

*To say that I was doing anything before Gore took action to froward the creation of the Internet as we know it today is not completely honest, since he had been taking such steps since as early as 1983, when I was only two. Regardless, I have been making the criticisms that I discuss above since well before I even knew what the Internet was.

not MY ass
Submitted by poot (not verified) on 18 June, 2004 - 9:48am.

Content aside, if I had to choose between a newspaper and toilet paper, I think I'd still choose toilet paper. But that's me.

If you think it's appropriate to wipe your ass with a newspaper, I think your ass might be entitled to separate counsel under Charmin's Bill of Rights. No cruel and unusual wiping implements!

Ambiguous
Submitted by thatgoodnight on 18 June, 2004 - 10:55am.

It's not clear whether he was referring to the quality of the newspaper or the quality of his parents' toilet paper.

Context leads me to believe the former, but that doesn't explain why a newspaper is "the most appropritate thing to wipe your ass with."

Hmm.