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
3
Replying to and
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
Replying to and
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
Replying to
Take any of those. I don’t think Wikipedia helps people become better informed consumers or community participants, either. But you know what *does* help people become better informed consumers? The FDA. Standards organizations. Lemon laws. Etc.
2
Replying to
My whole point is that those personas are *imposed* personas and are all equally bad! I’m arguing for empowerment in choices about what to even learn about and becoming informed about whatever you want, rather than to fit someone else’s idea of being informed for their purposes!
Replying to
I categorically reject the ideology that more choices equals freedom. Our existences are meaningful only as part of a human collective of some sort — and all collectivities entail coercion and choice curtailment. That’s annoying, but solipsism is not a credible alternative.
1