In article <telecom23.594.1@telecom-digest.org>,
wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org says:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 23:38:11 -0500, Ron Chapman,
> <ronchapman@wideopenwest.com> wrote:
>> Books, by their very nature, are wrought from processes that distill
>> the crap out and leave hard-considered facts and opinions. But on the
>> net, all it takes is one crazy to set up a "the Holocaust was a fake"
>> blog -- and how does a ten year old know how to interpret that? He
>> doesn't. But he reads it on the net ... so does he just go ahead and
>> use that as "fact" to back up his assignment?
>> It's all about EDITING.
>> Now, maybe if my kid's research was done online using only EDITED
>> resources, resources that have been through the same excruciating
>> processes that produce printed books, that would be fine.
> 100% taurine excrement. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a
> published book that's been around for a century. "Mein Kampf" is
> another book that was published long before the internet came into
> existance. Would you accept them as authoritative if some kid used
> them as sources for his homework assignment???
>> Unedited information makes for dangerous waters. It requires at the
>> least parental coaching to help the child become a well-rounded and
>> educated netizen. One should NOT leave the child alone to use the
>> naked net to finish an assignment. My parents could leave me in the
>> library by myself to do that, and I could leave my kid in the library
>> today, but not on the net. Not alone and without guidance.
> When someone once complained that 90% of science fiction was crud,
> Theodore Sturgeon shot back that 90% of *EVERYTHING* was crud. This
> is popularly known as "Sturgeon's Law". He was generally right,
> although some people might argue that 90% is a conservative number.
> Children need to be taught critical thinking and to critically examine
> *ALL* "facts", regardless of where those alleged facts are found,
> regardless of whether it's on the web or in a "respected publication".
> Now to get onto the topic of my subject ... when a new technology
> comes out that undermines entrenched interests using old tech, the old
> entrenched interests will fight tooth-and-nail to destroy the new
> tech.
> - Gutenberg's invention of the printing-press undermined the
> religious establishment's authority. Priests, often the only
> people literate in Latin, could open up an expensive parchment
> Latin Bible and tell the populace "The Holy Bible says blah blah
> blah...". Cheap English translations via Gutenberg's printing
> press allowed the populace to respond "No, it doesn't". The
> Church's initial reaction was to ban English Bible translations,
> and burn their authors at the stake (e.g. William Tyndale in 1536)
> - The automobile was fought tooth-and-nail by the horse-and-buggy
> industry. Ever heard of the "Red Flag Law"?
> - Low-cost (and for that matter no-cost) Open Source software is
> threatening to undermine Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft's
> response is to amass software patents and spread FUD about Open
> Source software ( http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5457879.html ).
> And then there's the Darl McBride fiaSCO.
> Web-publishing threatens the grip of the old-line media. In the old
> days, you needed to be a multi-millionaire, if not a billionaire, to
> own the media necessary to promote your version of the truth. Today,
> anybody with a few dollars a month for an internet connection and a
> webpage has the chance to have their story seen by a worldwide
> audience. And the old-line media are fighting tooth-and-nail to
> discredit/outlaw/hobble the new media. I don't deny that there will
> be plenty of garbage in the new media, but then again, there's plenty
> of garbage in the old media.
Speaking of threatening old line media I found this on Slashdot today:
<http://chalksidewalk.com/epic/ols-master.html>