An article entitled, Farther-reaching, faster ignorance thanks to Web, written by Greg Hill, director of Fairbanks North Star Borough libraries, has some choice words about wikis and blogs. A few quotes:
“The reach and power of telecommunications and computers have enabled everyone to spread evidence of their ignorance farther and faster than ever before. For proof, look at the recent emergence of blogs.”
“When bloggers feel passionately enough about a subject, often themselves, they create and regularly update blogs expressing their views, usually including hyperlinks to other Web pages that confirm their opinions. All it takes is some inexpensive and user-friendly blogging software, strong opinions and time. Actual knowledge is purely optional.”
“There are many credible blogs dealing with serious subjects, but most bloggers aren’t experts. As the old computer maxim GIGO states, “garbage in, garbage out,” and the person believing everything he reads–especially on blogs–is living dangerously indeed.”
“Blog owners usually don’t allow their readers to add their own comments, preferring their monologues to others’ dialogues…”
I’m not sure where to begin on this one. I guess I’ll start with the first paragraph and go from there. Why is Mr. Hill looking at weblogs as a source of “spreading ignorance”? People have been spreading ignorance on the Web for 10 years. Weblogs should be treated like everything else we find online. With skepticism, until one can build trust in the author of the content. People trust what I write because I have been doing it for 4 years now and have yet to be called on my trustworthiness. Sure, sometimes I’ll make an error, but that is quickly corrected by my fellow readers/bloggers.
Next he writes: “Actual knowledge is optional”. Absolutely wrong. The well written weblogs who have gathered a following and whom respectful people point to have knowledge. It is not optional. It is necessary to survive in the blogosphere. Granted, the author does state in the next paragraph that there are credible blogs, but the statements throughout the paragraph struck me as odd and not positive (then again, the entire article is negative).
Last, he writes that “Blog owners usually don’t allow their readers to add their own comments, preferring their monologues to others’ dialogues”. Wrong! Almost all the blogs that I read offer comments. There are a few that don’t, but those that do exponentially outweigh those that don’t. I wonder which blogs this librarian is reading?
On the other hand, blogs were created to provide a voice. The author implies here that strong opinions are deleterious to online readers. Opinions are good for the Web. We learned that this morning at the opening keynote session.
There is no reason to go into the whole wikipedia discussion again. Again, use caution with everything that you find on the open Web. Get some backup before delivering the information. It’s what librarians preach. These theories are not new. And blogs and wikis should not be the only online content targeted from this wrath.
This story came into my aggregator from The Blog Herald, which writes:
“Should we care what a two bit librarian in backwater, Alaska, has to say about blogging? Probably not. But slam bloggers and we reserve the right to let others know of the blogphobia you hold and encourage others to share their views with you via email to greg.hill@taos.fnsb.lib.ak.us”
I’m all for free speech, but think of how these types of negative articles can affect our profession. I’m just glad that not everyone in library land agrees with all of Mr. Hill’s thoughts.
Recent Comments