Several articles by academics have appeared recently suggesting that the Internet was useless for research and
an unreliable source of information. This kind of denigration would be palatable if (1) those making it were thoroughly familiar with Internet resources, (2) if their reactions weren't based on their own or others’ limited experience and biases, and (3) if they knew how to conduct research on the Internet.
I have no fault with the statement made by most of these critics about the Internet having plenty of useless and unreliable information. There'd be no cause for complaint if they didn't go from that to the faulty conclusion that all or most of the Web is an electronic storehouse of rubbish.
Those who castigate the Web for its weaknesses overlook how libraries, newspapers, magazines, radio and television also offer up large quantities of useless and unreliable information.
Fraudulent scientific research published and later exposed provides only a single example of the garbage that can appear in the most rigorous disciplines. The much-publicized fraudulent articles by respected scientists Stephen E. Bruening and Robert A Slutsky, for example, have been well documented.
When you move from there to the opinionated biases of historians, philosophers, sociologists, linguists, economists, art and literary critics--in fact any so-called respectable academic discipline--you can find libraries with stacks of useless misinformation.
Take a further step in the direction of the popular media that goes from misinformation to disinformation, and worse, and it can be demonstrated that the popular media--films, newspapers, magazines and TV--are even more deserving of denigration than the Internet.
If scholars, including scientists, are eternally finding that the predecessors in their fields erred grievously, how reliable can the biased sources of information in the media be? If William Safire of the
New York Times can be right in his praise of his friend Arial Sharon, how right can Robert Fisk of the
Independent be when he writes that Sharon should be tried for war crimes.
Of course one can find bigots, liars, con men and inept bunglers on the Web. What most of the critics of the Web focus on are the numerous inept bunglers. "Anybody can set up a Web site and load it with incorrect information and opinionated rubbish" the critics have said.
They hasten to add that published works have been through a process of peer review and/or editorial scrutiny before being accepted for publication. Popular media exercises a kind of censorship of works that the editors deem publicly unacceptable or that haven't been submitted by "recognized" authors of esteem.
While academics complain of the loose credentials of Web site
content providers, the popular media goes frantic over the fact that voices outside of the establishment can be heard. One of the great advantages of the Internet is that new and different voices can have a platform from which to express themselves.
Instead of bitching about the lack of academic credentials held by Web site content providers, the academic critics should be taking great pains to teach their students how to measure credibility and test reliability. Having earned Ph.D.s, they should have learned those things, and they have little excuse for failing to pass on what they've learned about evaluating information and its sources.
Furthermore, those critics who gripe about a plethora of useless knowledge on the Web should learn how to
find useful information on the Internet and engage in a bit of down-to-earth Internet research themselves.
Though the Internet does have worthless content (true of any storehouse, medium or library), the World Wide Web, with thousands of new sites added daily, also holds vast treasures to be discovered and
utilized.
Several things make these stored treasures especially valuable:
Ø They're accessible from home or anywhere else you happen to be with a computer and Internet connection.
Ø They're free for the taking.
Ø They're available at any time of the day or night.
Ø They're not buried or misplaced in library stacks or magazine racks; you can stand, sit or lie in front of your computer screen while searching.
Ø They're adequate enough to provide as much information as you'd get pursuing many academic degrees.
This last will, of course, be a major bone of contention with many academics. Face it: if they agreed, they'd be engaged in making themselves obsolete. One of the ways they're heading toward obsolescence is by deluding themselves and others into believing that the Internet cannot be a source of useful information. Those delusions don't cut it with young learners who have found extremely valuable (to them) information on the Web.
Certainly those academics who extol the virtues of libraries over the Internet should be able to see the weaknesses of the library system and the potential for the Internet to strengthen it. How many libraries have adequate holdings for research in all fields? A half dozen in the world, all located hundreds, even thousands, of miles from where most people live, study and work.
Instead of grousing about the inadequacies of the Internet, those who espouse the benefits of fully stocked libraries should be devoting their energies to the development of respectable and accessible electronic libraries, and not just the ones accessible to local residents with a library card.
They should be making efforts to get the funding, cooperation and organization necessary to digitalize hundreds of thousands of books and journal archives, no longer under copyright restrictions, presently in the best physical libraries, and making them available to anyone on the Internet.
It's shameful that a single organization of volunteers working on the Gutenberg Project
has been just about the only serious group of people working to create a semblance of an electronic library.
It's also nothing more than self-serving that authors and publishers haven't made any serious strides toward rendering copyright restrictions no more limiting to electronic access than they are to ordinary library access.
You can walk into your local library and read the latest publications. Why can't you fire up your computer at home and do the same? A number of newspapers and magazines have made strides in this direction. It's time for book publishers to follow suit. If they don't, peer-to-peer facilities are bound to pop up so that people can circumvent copyright restrictions, authors' royalties and publishers' profits.
The fact that no one has to approve Internet content before it's placed on the Web is both a blessing and blight. It's a blessing because you're not subjected to the limitations of a controlled media. One can find information that isn't available elsewhere along with unusual thinking that seldom makes it into print and voices that may be unpopular but exist
nonetheless in the real world.
The blight comes from the responsibility bestowed on the user to determine the reliability and credibility of what he reads and sees. It's left to the Internet user to evaluate his Internet sources. An excellent article by
Robert Harris on the Web
applies not only to research sources on the Web, but to other media as well.
The Department of English at St. Louis University has compiled an excellent
tutorial guide to research with the World Wide Web. Though the guide was compiled in 1997, it covers the essential and relevant topics for online research. These include explanations of various different types of Web pages, search strategies and evaluating Web sources for relevance, authority and accuracy.
Eddie Byrne, a librarian with the Dublin City Library Service has developed a
site that complements the Guide at the University of St. Louis. Byrne's site
assumes a basic knowledge of the Web, and the beginner should get that from the first guide.
Finally, Virtual
Salt, a more recent collection of research tools, includes links to all the major search engines, directories, reference sources, databases, graphics specialty and government pages, periodicals, books, media and news sites.
A few online book efforts are commendable, like that provided by the University of Pennsylvania
with over 18,000 books online, including all of the classics. They have drawn heavily from Project Gutenberg.
Remember, until this century, the most highly respected education at both Oxford and Cambridge was in the classics, which also provided the basis for the development by Robert Hutchins of the University of Chicago. Now, with the classics, and more, available on the Internet, anyone motivated enough can go for a great education.
Who needs a bunch of obsolete academics and stuffy librarians complaining about the Internet when they should be working to make it even better?
