On Fri, 20 May 2011, James Weinheimer wrote:
> Ex-President Bill Clinton has suggested the creation of some kind of agency
> that would "be independent" to seek out and "correct" factual errors on the
> Internet, and has come under a lot of criticism for it, with critics calling
> it a "truth regulator" or a "Ministry of Truth" etc.
Thank you for bringing up this topic, Jim. Libraries could also be
scapegoated as "truth regulators" or "Ministries [interesting word in
several contexts] of Truth" by those [perhaps few but powerful] who would
prefer to run society with distortion and use fear mongering to do it.
The issues, of course, are to consider *how* such a concept could be
implemented for the benefit of all, and to avoid being frightened away
from considering the positive possibilities.
> But he makes a valid point with: "Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe
> it's a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money ... I don't believe that
Bill Clinton was suggesting any kind of censorship ...
That fact that the media (Internet included) in being used to to
considerable effect to manipulate people in contradiction to generating
substantive and constructive conversations is indeed a valid observation.
I especially like Mr. Clinton's willingness to use the word "maybe" to
encourage discussion. He's correct, of course- we need to run a government
that informs people and educates them in how to "separate the wheat from
the chaff" (Hmmm, today must be Metaphor Day), and that may be all it
needs to do, which would, of course, obviate any need for censorship.
> As I have mentioned in several posts, one "user need" that I have heard
> requested very often, from little children to advanced researchers, is
> the need for selection.
Actually, people do no need information "selected" for them, they just
(and justly) need to be taught how to recognize and avoid manipulative
presentations, such as by becoming familiar with fallacies and biases of
thought and expression, and by applying critical thinking rather than
allowing themselves to be manipulated.
> People are gradually becoming suspicious of Google and its algorithms
> (at last!)
It is about time, absolutely! We should have been suspicious at the very
beginning when Google insinuated itself into our daily language (and
library pages) as a word meaning "search." We simply can't allow ourselves
to be manipulated like that and remain constructively critical.
> private, for-profit corporations are vulnerable to all kinds of
> manipulation from the public, from their competitors, and from all kinds
> of forces in the world.
Um, that seems a little counter-intuitive. Actually, private, for-profit
corporations are the ones (certain ones) doing the manipulation *of* the
public, their competitors, and all kinds of forces in the world.
> Their business aim of "make the customer happy" is not always the
> same as telling people the truth.
Exactly. In fact, it is a deception. Has no one noticed the gradual
disappearance of that old adage "The customer is always right" by the
"Barnum Concept" (you must be familiar with the Barnum Concept, so I
won't repeat it)?
> Besides, people still find a lot of junk in the search results of Google
> and Yahoo while missing a lot at the same time.
Sure, you could say that is the fault of the junk itself ("Let's get rid
of it!"), but it is actually the fault of the society (e.g. educational
system, libraries, and media) for not teaching people how to think
critically instead of just leaving them to enjoy "entertainment" above
responsibility.
> It would be much more like Citizendium, written by experts ...
Ah, there's the rub! Who can decide what constitutes expertise and who
an "expert" is (and how), and can people be manipulated into making
mistakes? Compare, just as an example, without prejudice but with critical
thinking, Wikipedia with Conservapedia.
> Clinton's idea is to build a place to verify facts.
An excellent idea, and the examples given are excellent. Of course,
"verification" itself is a touchy subject, subject to manipulation as much
as the "facts". so people need to be taught how to recognize language that
is manipulative and dismiss it and "facts" taken out of context or other
wise distorted.
> Naturally, librarians would be important parts of this....
Excellent point, Jim. That says it all!
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Mon May 23 2011 - 13:11:52 EDT