Glass Half Full
Just as with any other form of conveying information from one party to another, the new wave of digital communication and preservation has both advantages and disadvantages. For anyone who has ever spent more than a few minutes on a Wiki page of some sort, it is clear that information on the Internet has the potential to be either highly credible and informative or misleading and facetious. In some cases, tit is even possible to observe a blending of the two within the confines of a single paragraph. However, this sort of freedom in the sharing of information and ideas also provides a forum for discussion on less popular or more personal topics in a more peer-to-peer conversational format, or at least with more personal experience pertaining to the problems associated with everyday life, instead of just lofty ideas encased in elevated language. Is this aspect of the Internet an advantage or a disadvantage as we move forward with the use of the Internet as a source of historical information?
“Like postmodernism, the Internet does not distinguish between the true and the false, the important and the trivial, the enduring and the ephemeral. . . . Every source appearing on the screen has the same weight and credibility as every other; no authority is ‘privileged’ over any other.”
[Quote in context found here.]
The above quote highlights the viewpoint of conservative Gertrude Himmelfarb when assessing the potential future problems of the Internet in November of 1996. While she sees this non-discriminatory aspect of the Internet as a large disadvantage, I am inclined to disagree. Without this ability to author content on the Internet with little or no qualifications I would not be reaching you today. Sure, I may not be the most educated, eloquent person on the Internet, but does that make my points invalid? It is certainly possible that I may at least spark interest, or even provide insight, for my readers.
Beyond providing this additional level of global discussion on an individual level for almost any Web user, the Internet also helps to give a voice to those who may not have had a chance to broadcast their opinions had the Internet been made into a highly controlled, “elite club” reserved for intellectuals. Sure, within the U.S. it is evident that certain demographics have less computer access than others and worldwide this gap is even more exaggerated. Does this mean that it does not help introduce the opinions of others from positions of lesser power? Certainly not.
The Internet gives people strength by letting them find a community. There is no sign on the internet saying “you must make $100,000 annually to enter” or “no women allowed”: everyone can become their advocate and gain strength by finding similar individuals with a similar cause. If you are economically disadvantaged, you can easily reach out to others about ways to get help or make the best of the resources you have from others who have been in the same predicament. In fact, if you are economically disadvantaged and wish to publish your work, the fees associated with publishing online content are minimal and the cost is hardly raised as the popularity of the work rises, making a perfect new path to the sharing of information for those excluded by the traditional means.
Beyond that, if you are perhaps homosexual (a topic that has become less and less taboo partially due to the assistance of the Internet and its users) and you need encouragement and support to come out of the closet, you can find a support system to rely on based on other’s personal experience. If the Internet were forced into some time of strict caste system, or if society’s “less desirable” or “less popular” groups (not that this is my personal opinion towards any of the aforementioned groups) were omitted based on a difference in opinion, this type of value peer to peer discussion would be near impossible.
This is why I see this equal playing field provided by the Internet as such a unique advantage. The type of discussion that it allows for is invaluable in modern society. It is simply the user’s responsibility to evaluate the credibility of the information they are taking in. With a conscious effort to take information for what it is, the Internet is suddenly a wonderful place for both scholarly discourse and a new wave of slightly questionable, yet highly personal, political activism, among many other uses for the common man (or woman). For me, the glass is half full.
Leave a Reply