Comments on: The [Computer] Age of Illusion http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/01/29/the-computer-age-of-illusion/ Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:20:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Daze http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/01/29/the-computer-age-of-illusion/comment-page-1/#comment-162 Daze Sun, 31 Jan 2010 01:36:43 +0000 http://lemodesittjr.com.previewdns.com/2010/01/29/the-computer-age-of-illusion/#comment-162 A classic example of this is a so-called quote from Martin Luther King- "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter". Practically every quotation site has it: many many sites of poetry or peace or both - 291 million references in all. <br /><br />I used it myself, then being a bit of an obsessive about primary sources, tried to get the exact reference - when did he say it, where, who to? That led me to the One Big Exception: the Martin Luther King complete archive at Stanford. Why are they the exception? Because he didn't say it, Bishop Desmond Tutu did, in a speech where, in context, it is clear that he is paraphrasing and simplifying a paragraph from the letter from Birmingham jail. <br /><br />Of those 291 million quotes, probably a couple of hundred have the correct source. A classic example of this is a so-called quote from Martin Luther King- "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter". Practically every quotation site has it: many many sites of poetry or peace or both – 291 million references in all.

I used it myself, then being a bit of an obsessive about primary sources, tried to get the exact reference – when did he say it, where, who to? That led me to the One Big Exception: the Martin Luther King complete archive at Stanford. Why are they the exception? Because he didn't say it, Bishop Desmond Tutu did, in a speech where, in context, it is clear that he is paraphrasing and simplifying a paragraph from the letter from Birmingham jail.

Of those 291 million quotes, probably a couple of hundred have the correct source.

]]> By: christoph http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/01/29/the-computer-age-of-illusion/comment-page-1/#comment-161 christoph Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:53:22 +0000 http://lemodesittjr.com.previewdns.com/2010/01/29/the-computer-age-of-illusion/#comment-161 This reminds me of lecture a few years back in which the head of the University of Washington Information Sciences department estimated that approximately 15% of the info on the internet is accurate. This reminds me of lecture a few years back in which the head of the University of Washington Information Sciences department estimated that approximately 15% of the info on the internet is accurate.

]]> By: Josh http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/01/29/the-computer-age-of-illusion/comment-page-1/#comment-160 Josh Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:04:19 +0000 http://lemodesittjr.com.previewdns.com/2010/01/29/the-computer-age-of-illusion/#comment-160 The second illusion has another aggravating way of manifesting, and that is in Wikipedia. I can't begin to say how many times people try to use Wikipedia as the end-all source of complete and correct answers, especially in the middle of a debate.<br /><br />Wikipedia is little more than a collection of opinions and second-hand information. While information is supposed to be properly cited, there is no guarantee that the original source information wasn't taken out of context. I'd like to think that most people would flag or change misleading data, but that brings me to two more tidbits. First, the vast majority of sources are not from trusted, peer-reviewed publications. A source is not credible if it's just some other editor or publisher's opinion. Second, just because information comes from a trusted source (assuming that it does), it isn't necessarily fact. How many studies are quoted and cited to back up an argument while there are ten times as many other studies that have different findings?<br /><br />Ultimately (and this ties back into the illusion of completeness), research itself should be researched. Dig deeper than the surface. If I find an article or some other publication that seems credible, it too should have sources. Those should be checked as well, at least to a reasonable degree.<br /><br />I check Wikipedia too, but I try to keep in mind its limitations. After all, opinions are fine and great, but they're not the final line of reason. Unfortunately, it seems that too many people see Wikipedia as the paragon of truth on the internet. The second illusion has another aggravating way of manifesting, and that is in Wikipedia. I can't begin to say how many times people try to use Wikipedia as the end-all source of complete and correct answers, especially in the middle of a debate.

Wikipedia is little more than a collection of opinions and second-hand information. While information is supposed to be properly cited, there is no guarantee that the original source information wasn't taken out of context. I'd like to think that most people would flag or change misleading data, but that brings me to two more tidbits. First, the vast majority of sources are not from trusted, peer-reviewed publications. A source is not credible if it's just some other editor or publisher's opinion. Second, just because information comes from a trusted source (assuming that it does), it isn't necessarily fact. How many studies are quoted and cited to back up an argument while there are ten times as many other studies that have different findings?

Ultimately (and this ties back into the illusion of completeness), research itself should be researched. Dig deeper than the surface. If I find an article or some other publication that seems credible, it too should have sources. Those should be checked as well, at least to a reasonable degree.

I check Wikipedia too, but I try to keep in mind its limitations. After all, opinions are fine and great, but they're not the final line of reason. Unfortunately, it seems that too many people see Wikipedia as the paragon of truth on the internet.

]]>