In Google We Trust [Slashdot]
The article is actually called In Searching We Trust and it is good. But a lot of the criticism of Google is somewhat misguided. Any search (or research) tool has a series of problems that are inherent to the problem of searching (or researching). They are outdated (Google by something like 3 months which is not a lot), they contain information of variable quality, and they are either edited with a slant or contain everything (right or wrong). There is no way around these issues. Any encyclopedia has the same problem, any library has the same problem. At the end, it is the human doing the search (or the research) that has to adapt and decide, no machine will substitute for it. But Google is a very valuable tool (particularly because it is unedited and contains everything). You can get knowledge as knowledge really is: All the arguments, the messy misconceptions and the wacky theories that sometimes, yes, sometimes, turn out to be surprisingly right, despite the experts opinions.
If you want to test a little bit of this try searching for Ah Kin and Ah Kin Mai in Google, The Encyclopaedea Britannica, and the Wikipedia, you'll find different results corresponding, not only to different levels of knowledge, but to competing theories and varied understanding of Mayan culture. If you want another interesting exercise, try to find out the difference between searching and researching...
12:16:26 PM
|
|