Authority and Ideology

Posted on | November 17, 2009 | 3 Comments

The issue with wikipedia isn’t credibility or merit, it’s how to effectively use an open source like this. For example, going directly to the “external links” and “notes” sections at the bottom of every wikipedia page, habits of traditional scholarly critique (i.e., checking citations, sources and the end notes – which allows you to discern the bias, depth or quality of research). This way, you, the reader, can go directly to the “legitimate” sources and verify their value or merit for yourself.

Melanie McBride has written a thoughtful post on “Authority” v. wikipedia (why teachers are picking the wrong fight) in which she tugs at the political / ideological nature of ‘authority’. She compares traditional, peer-reviewed processes with open models. She also quotes Howard Rheingold on the need for the skills of ‘crap detection’ (a phrase borrowed from Hemingway). I’m not sure that this is a ‘new literacy’ since the capacity to check sources and detect misinformation, disinformation and sheer hogwash has always been an important skill. However, the context in which it is used is undoubtedly changing.

Technorati Tags: melanie mcbride, authority, ideology, howard rheingold, crap detection

Category: authority, knowledge, literacy, politics

Comments

3 Responses to “Authority and Ideology”

Twitter Trackbacks for Authority and Ideology : John Connell: The Blog [johnconnell.co.uk] on Topsy.com
November 17th, 2009 @ 9:24 pm

[...] Authority and Ideology : John Connell: The Blog http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=2304 – view page – cached The issue with wikipedia isn’t credibility or merit, it’s how to effectively use an open source like this. For example, going directly to the “external links” and “notes” sections at… Read moreThe issue with wikipedia isn’t credibility or merit, it’s how to effectively use an open source like this. For example, going directly to the “external links” and “notes” sections at the bottom of every wikipedia page, habits of traditional scholarly critique (i.e., checking citations, sources and the end notes – which allows you to discern the bias, depth or quality of research). This way, you, the reader, can go directly to the “legitimate” sources and verify their value or merit for yourself. Read less [...]
David Gilmour
November 17th, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

Hemingway’s “crap detection” skills have probably been needed since time immemorial, but they’re definitely much more important now.

It’s not just that the context’s changing with the advent of the web. It’s just one channel being exploited by the “misinformation, disinformation and hogwash” industry. The sheer scale of their operations encompasses such a wide range of potential information sources that being able to detect their influence must be one of the most important skills for people in today’s society. People helping raise awareness in this area, notably Ben Goldacre with his excellent Bad Science columns, book and website, deserve our thanks.
Joe
November 18th, 2009 @ 10:07 am

Fascinating topic John, and one I’m sure you will agree more often characterized by blather from the obvious suspects, rather than informed thought. The only piece of serious research I know of into this, is by UCL, commissioned by the British Library and JISC. It’s a Ciber Briefing paper called, “Information behaviour of the researcher of the future,” Jan 2008. In it you will find these two intriguing conclusions.

The main characteristic of digital information seeking behaviour is what they call: “Horizontal information seeking. A form of skimming activity, where people view just one or two pages from an academic site and then `bounce’ out, perhaps never to return. The figures are instructive: around 60 per cent of e-journal users view no more than three pages and a majority (up to 65 per cent) never return.”

They also claim that, “The average times that users spend on e-book and ejournal sites are very short: typically four and eight minutes respectively. It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense, indeed there are signs that new forms of `reading’ are emerging as users `power browse’ horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.”

It’s the last sentence that ought to make any teacher prick up their ears.