Hoo boy do I radically disagree. It utterly depends on what kind of knowledge you’re talking about. Because there’s lots that’s not on the internet, but the cult of the internet makes people think it contains everything.
Conversation
Replying to
Clearly I have smarter millennial friends than you 😀
Sure there’s some availability bias but that’s true of all media. Academic western libraries have their own biases.
1
3
Replying to
Obviously all archives & data sources have their limitations. But the peril of the Internet isn't just that it makes people more heavily weigh their judgments toward the latest news & information; it's also that the myth of the Net is that it's the only data source anyone needs.
2
Replying to
In general people triage, and pick their beyond-the-internet digging battles. If you’re not a professional academic with access to a good library and no cost to digging deep whenever, you have to pick battles. The Wikipedia gloss usually replaces ‘nothing’, not a scholarly tome.
1
5
Replying to
You’re judging random curiosities by academic research standards. Basically, in 1988, a random nerd who wondered about a question would conclude “too much trouble to figure out” and move on without ever learning *any* answer. In 2018, they’d look up Wikipedia at least
1
1
3
Most random curiosity does not, and should not, seek more than satisficing. It’s better than knowing no answers, and better than trying to dive deep on everything indiscriminately.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing sure, but I prefer it to elites+illiterates condition.
1
4
Replying to
Well, if the standard is “satisfying random curiosity” then yes, Wikipedia is the best thing ever. But if the standard is producing more knowledgeable (the OP said “better informed”) citizens, I beg to differ.
1
1
Replying to
They *are* better informed. Just not about the things *you* think they ought to better informed about.
Things that will give them more agency and opportunities and community in their own lives. “Better citizenship” is your priority for them.
2
2
I didn’t use the word citizen. I said people. The fact that you made the substitution is very revealing. Others arguing your position might have subbed “consumer” or “community member”.
3
In fact I think people weren’t any better informed as “citizens” in the past either, when elites had greater ability to dictate their consumption. Most people still skipped straight to the sports section or whatever best fit their curiosity. Not local town hall debates.

