 |
 |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]> > See also Britannica's point by point response to the Nature article that suggested Whacky-Packia is > as useful/truthful as Britannica (www.britannica.com). > > Search engines are just as bad as Whacky-Packia in perpetuating the Internet as echo chamber for > rumors, half-truths and out-of-contexts. Most search engines return results based on being paid to > favor some pages over others (do some digging and you'll find that just about all of them have this > practice -- a "favored return" or something like that). And since kids are not being taught to > discriminate about sources and context, to them all results are equally valid. Plus, if one is > searching for very specific information, even after years of tuning search engines, you better know > some very specific keywords or you will spend hours wading through garbage. > > Now, I'm no Luddite (I prefer "traditionalist ;) ) but I think one needs to approach real research > on the Internet, as opposed to leisurely pursuit of curiosity, with great care and caution. And, as > I spent a good hour explaining to my niece recently, just because 10 pages say the same wrong thing > doesn't mean it will ever be right. > I suspect that most 21st-century students...just like many of their "forebears"...aren't interested in the accuracy or completeness of the information they acquire via search engines. In most cases, they are trying to complete papers which they were assigned in their classes, and are simply trying to find enough information to compose a reasonably intellectual-sounding document X pages long so they can submit it before the deadline (and said work may be graded by a graduate assistant who might not recognize any inaccuracies...) Steven C. Barr