Trinity I'm looking at you
So I have been thinking lately of how much I love teh intarnets. I really appreciate that if I see something of interest in the paper I can look it up to find more information where as before I would have had to actually go to the library and cross reference through books which I probably would not have done.
I'm not saying that reading, or at least conventional reading, is obsolete. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am never without a book, particularly lately. And I would not suggest that the information found online is largely accurate, although generally I think it merely fails tell the whole story rather then falsifying. Sort of a lie by omission.
And this is my point. Lately I have been looking up things I find in the local newspaper to get more information and it seems that most sources merely reiterate what the news article said not giving me any new information. Of course, the library wouldn't help me here as most of these things have yet to be compiled into a book and for the most part the subject of the article is otherwise unknown.
By the way, this all comes in relation to reading an article about Ryan Moonie, a local disabled man who states that he was mistreated by the police and that his disability wasn't taken into account. I tend to believe him as it's not really that outrageous (rolling eyes) but can't I simply learn what his disability is?
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=e619b8f3-ac87-4e98-b6d1-435d9ff52764
I think that all people who are the subject of news articles should put up a webpage stating their case (particularly in concern to the law), and this is where Wikipedia fails.
Alright so I don't really believe that, but Wikipedia still fails!
So what's my point? Information may be widespread and free, but knowledge isn't. Knowledge continues to be white washed and sanctafied and comes, most often, from only one point of view, online or not.
I'm not saying that reading, or at least conventional reading, is obsolete. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am never without a book, particularly lately. And I would not suggest that the information found online is largely accurate, although generally I think it merely fails tell the whole story rather then falsifying. Sort of a lie by omission.
And this is my point. Lately I have been looking up things I find in the local newspaper to get more information and it seems that most sources merely reiterate what the news article said not giving me any new information. Of course, the library wouldn't help me here as most of these things have yet to be compiled into a book and for the most part the subject of the article is otherwise unknown.
By the way, this all comes in relation to reading an article about Ryan Moonie, a local disabled man who states that he was mistreated by the police and that his disability wasn't taken into account. I tend to believe him as it's not really that outrageous (rolling eyes) but can't I simply learn what his disability is?
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=e619b8f3-ac87-4e98-b6d1-435d9ff52764
I think that all people who are the subject of news articles should put up a webpage stating their case (particularly in concern to the law), and this is where Wikipedia fails.
Alright so I don't really believe that, but Wikipedia still fails!
So what's my point? Information may be widespread and free, but knowledge isn't. Knowledge continues to be white washed and sanctafied and comes, most often, from only one point of view, online or not.