Since the ethics portfolio is to appear a journal as much as possible, I've decided to "litter' this with my little thoughts on related stuff. Seemingly-related ones included.
Sir GGR's piece on how to answer the forums got my attention the other day. That is when he said:
How true.
How else would you explain the difficulty of getting decent material from searches these days? Sure there are some gems you'll get to stumble along the way but that still doesn't account for the rest of the senseless ones you'll have to wade through to get to the good stuff. And by good stuff I mean those that actually qualify as valid sources from the subject.
It is quite rare when you'd find someone who actually spends time writing substantial thoughts on his/her own. Personally I find it so much an eyesore to wade through too much post-modern delivery of entries in a particular blog.
Try and make a real paper acceptable to strict academic standards and you'll get what I mean. Sure wikipedia gets you off to a good start but there's still a lot of work to be done.
That and the popularity of readers to get content perceived to be worth one's time are telltale in themselves. While the issue of convenience to get information the fastest way seems to be the reason for the popularity of the latter, it also brings to fore another reason: time spent for searching for sensible content is better spent for something more productive.
Finally we see SEO as another buzzword in growing usage around cyberspace. With the battle of the search rankings raging on for the past few years because of the Web 2.0 movement, it really isn't hard to see how the quality of content has to eventually give way to its quantity.
And to think that once I was raring to post this interesting piece on what the author calls "social surplus" somewhere. Perhaps Luis hit something there when writing about his piece about "blogs and their rather sordid relationship with mainstream media:"
Right.
Sir GGR's piece on how to answer the forums got my attention the other day. That is when he said:
Just one thing to remember though..., the challenge for all is personal critical thinking and personal reflection. Don't just accept what people have written but rather process them and be brave to post your own insights (backed by evidences of course).
This is what we lack in this technology and information-rich society. Let's face it, many in today's world can't process quality of information rather they get lost or drowned in the superficial ones.
How true.
How else would you explain the difficulty of getting decent material from searches these days? Sure there are some gems you'll get to stumble along the way but that still doesn't account for the rest of the senseless ones you'll have to wade through to get to the good stuff. And by good stuff I mean those that actually qualify as valid sources from the subject.
It is quite rare when you'd find someone who actually spends time writing substantial thoughts on his/her own. Personally I find it so much an eyesore to wade through too much post-modern delivery of entries in a particular blog.
Try and make a real paper acceptable to strict academic standards and you'll get what I mean. Sure wikipedia gets you off to a good start but there's still a lot of work to be done.
That and the popularity of readers to get content perceived to be worth one's time are telltale in themselves. While the issue of convenience to get information the fastest way seems to be the reason for the popularity of the latter, it also brings to fore another reason: time spent for searching for sensible content is better spent for something more productive.
Finally we see SEO as another buzzword in growing usage around cyberspace. With the battle of the search rankings raging on for the past few years because of the Web 2.0 movement, it really isn't hard to see how the quality of content has to eventually give way to its quantity.
And to think that once I was raring to post this interesting piece on what the author calls "social surplus" somewhere. Perhaps Luis hit something there when writing about his piece about "blogs and their rather sordid relationship with mainstream media:"
The point I’m trying to make is this: I do not begrudge anyone their grammatically-challenged, horribly-written detailing-my-last-shampoo-purchase train-wreck-of-a-blog. This is your God-given right as someone who (probably) pays for Internet access. However, we shouldn’t sell it like it’s the cure for cancer either. We need to accept the fact that the Internet - particularly the part of it that’s user-generated - is full of crap. It’s filled to the brim and everyday the container overflows and splashes everyone in the face with crap. And we shouldn’t wonder why people on the other side of the fence look at us and shake their heads, saying, “Wow, look at those people doing backflips into that giant pool of feces.”
Right.
No comments:
Post a Comment