[PREV - SOURCES_CONSIDERED] [TOP]
LIES
(Early 90s. Additional: 03/00)
lies, damn lies, and usenet.
"Once individuals can add to the
hypertext web by themselves - and by
any account a posting to Usenet news HYPER
is a piece of that - then lies,
half-lies, mistruths, mistakes, and
all kinds of informed or misinformed
opinions [will proliferate]."
-- emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Right, link explosion is a problem all
right. But link filtering has got to
be at least a partial answer. In my
example, for instance, I would be happy
if I could screen out all comments Eric Drexler puts a lot of
except those made by accredited emphasis on Fact Forums (a
physicists. variation of Science Courts)
and maybe that's a part
of the answer, too.
And you know, as bad as usenet gets
sometimes, I think it's often superior
to conventional media because it's more
hypertextual. To take an example close
at hand, when Ted Nelson was doing his
"World Enough" show, the San Jose
Mercury news published a review that
was *awful*. The man clearly knew very
little about Nelson (certainly he'd
never read one of his books) and he
engaged in a really vicious, killer
review, no better than a usenet flame.
But at least with usenet, *someone*
would argue with the flamer. Every
blatant untruth is usually immediately
followed by a counter-argument, and a
threaded newsreader like nn or gnus
brings the two very close together.
And just as clearly, a system
like the WWW is inferior to
this respect to usenet, since
counter-arguments are not
automatically brought close to
hand.
However, I do think it's
it's of some value that the
Web is *obviously* unreliable,
unlike the major media which
is pretty clearly just as bad,
but expends some effort to
hide the fact...
--------
[NEXT - XANADU]