I have no problem with wikipedia as a concept. Reality is already subjectively created and interpreted, may as well make the process a little more transparent, draw people that much more into a storytelling reality.
But I have to admit, sometimes I worry that an online negotiation of truth will ruin the collective sanity, that it threatens cultural boundaries that are better left alone...but rather than censor the internet, can’t we just blind the stupid?
Wikipedia has already overwhelmed Google to such an extent that it’s nearly impossible to find any information on how to kill it, so we should just accept its presence and choose some other way to mediate between conflicting truths, a way that will leave the information out there without presenting people already too absorbed in abstraction another abstract evil which contrarian individuals can be associated with.
Because, truth be told, I have no problem leaving a bunch of people ignorant, so long as I don’t have to deal with them. I see nothing righteous about forcing alternate perspectives down another person’s throat. It’s tiring.
I’ll stay in my circle of hell, you stay in yours, and we’ll talk about tangentials.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
That last line doesn't do it for me. I mean it sounds good and I like it, but does it really come across as genial or does it just seem flippant and farcical? Though being able to give the finger through text is one of my favorite things, like raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens. The issue I have with Brooks article or, moreover, the link too Brooks' article is that it deals with separation and diversity in a purely visual sense. People have started wars against those who look entirely the same, just as they've started wars on those who appear different. The entire argument seems based on a crux that isn't wholly complete. And, whether it be some sort of odd guilt of not wanting to be inclusive, or if it's just some view of long term propagation, I think small separate communities would eventually kill most of us off. The animals with the most successful survival rates have the most diverse genetic resource pool. As a conclusion, I'm not sold on 'separate but equal.'
As for your criticism of the Brooks article, I agree with your point. I was speaking more about differences of opinion that are viewed as a threat, not about any cues which mislead people to assume such threatening diversity.
I don't know to what extent this idea o'mine will lead to any increase in separation between groups...it's meant more to avoid overarching censorship (the imposition of one group's will on another's), though that means accepting that some people will choose self-censorship.
As to what the effects of such acceptance will be...I think we do accept "social bounds" to some extent already, this is more a method for tranferring what we already do to a new medium while minimizing any arguments made to restrict everyone's access to information.
Sorry to inform you, but you have been tagged (see link). I didn't want to do it either, but if I don't the god I don't believe in might smote me.
http://tantalusprime.blogspot.com/2007/07/octet-of-random-facts.html
Post a Comment