Information loop
Dec 7, 2017 13:46:43 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 13:46:43 GMT -5
...or whatever this should be called.
I've been thinking about the way we look for information, use it, and spread it in the digital era. Let's say a revolution happens in Algeria. Nobody knows anything about Algeria, so a lot of people will probably get curious and try to learn more. Most of them will go to Google, get the same Wikipedia link, and learn the same information, some of which might be false. Then, next time they have a conversation about Algeria or need to write something about it, they will rely on that same information and share it with others, making it even more prevalent and sort of reestablishing it in the process.
Another case, a real one this time. A Japanese comic artist invented a word, 魔鯨, for his story. When his work reached the English speaking community, nobody was sure what's the best way to translate the weird word. However, someone found a Japanese blog by a fan, who theorized that 魔鯨 might refer to Leviathan. That's a bit of a stretch to say the least, but the English translator went with it, and it became the accepted English translation. Now a Russian dude is translating that comic to our language. Naturally, he also got confused by that made up word. So what did he do? Of course he went on the internet, found the Leviathan term on an English wiki, and decided to use it too. And so this questionable translation gradually became the standard all over the world. And it was all caused by a single fan blog.
You see what I'm getting at? It's like because of the internet certain opinions can easily become the standard that keeps gaining more and more ground through endless repetition, making it harder to find different and unique points of view. Recently I've been told something like: "If you're doing a research, don't use the internet. Go to a big library, get a good number of books, and study them instead of websites that most of the time simply copy each other and barely contain any original ideas". It sounded so true to me.
What do you think? Do you also notice this limitation? How much content on the internet is original and is it a problem? I guess this "information loop" has existed since the stone age or whatever, but it seems that the internet brought this issue to a new level.
I've been thinking about the way we look for information, use it, and spread it in the digital era. Let's say a revolution happens in Algeria. Nobody knows anything about Algeria, so a lot of people will probably get curious and try to learn more. Most of them will go to Google, get the same Wikipedia link, and learn the same information, some of which might be false. Then, next time they have a conversation about Algeria or need to write something about it, they will rely on that same information and share it with others, making it even more prevalent and sort of reestablishing it in the process.
Another case, a real one this time. A Japanese comic artist invented a word, 魔鯨, for his story. When his work reached the English speaking community, nobody was sure what's the best way to translate the weird word. However, someone found a Japanese blog by a fan, who theorized that 魔鯨 might refer to Leviathan. That's a bit of a stretch to say the least, but the English translator went with it, and it became the accepted English translation. Now a Russian dude is translating that comic to our language. Naturally, he also got confused by that made up word. So what did he do? Of course he went on the internet, found the Leviathan term on an English wiki, and decided to use it too. And so this questionable translation gradually became the standard all over the world. And it was all caused by a single fan blog.
You see what I'm getting at? It's like because of the internet certain opinions can easily become the standard that keeps gaining more and more ground through endless repetition, making it harder to find different and unique points of view. Recently I've been told something like: "If you're doing a research, don't use the internet. Go to a big library, get a good number of books, and study them instead of websites that most of the time simply copy each other and barely contain any original ideas". It sounded so true to me.
What do you think? Do you also notice this limitation? How much content on the internet is original and is it a problem? I guess this "information loop" has existed since the stone age or whatever, but it seems that the internet brought this issue to a new level.
