To Google or not to Google....

[northener]

Here's something to turn over for those of us who enjoy 'slugging it out' with fellow .Orgers.

When in discussion or argument, is it really 'playing the game' to use search engines or online info sites such as "Dodgypedia" all the time to back up ones arguments - especially concerning a subject that you have no real knowledge of?

I will use the internet to find out about 'stuff' and will happily post links to relevant subjects.
But, when I read some posts, I get the impression that the author is simply putting as many 'plugs' in as they can to create an illusion of superior knowledge upon the subject in question (and a few other subjects as well for good measure....).

Is this sensible use of available information or is this Ego massaging? A cyber version of academic namedropping? Or just some bozo trying to look clever?

So, is it OK to use online sources to bolster ones' argument on a constant basis by including information purely gleaned from the 'net and presented as your own knowledge (even on a subject upon which we have little or no prior knowledge) or should we rely upon our own pre-existing knowledge and only use the internet as a referral system in links?

I know which one I would prefer - and I quote from Hobbes 'Leviathan'.........;)

[scorrie]

I would use Google or other sites to either check facts, or to find evidence to support an opinion. I would have thought that anyone can access information on the internet but not everyone could necessarily grasp that same information in its entirety. If you do not have a decent grasp of the subject in the first place, it would be all too easy to take information out of context.

I see no harm in using the internet as a tool but there is not much point in trying to rely on it to help you "punch above your weight"

[Rheghead]

Is this sensible use of available information or is this Ego massaging? A cyber version of academic namedropping? Or just some bozo trying to look clever?


Possibly but then a post which encourages people to stop explaining themselves correctly with online references is also akin to 'book burning' and all the ignorance that accompanies it.:)

[teenybash]

When I am doing a bit of eaves dropping on some of the quite feiry debates that go on, I have noticed some who use exact wording, taken from sites......and using them as if their own............MMmmm?:confused

[TBH]

Where do people get knowledge from? Personal experience, reading books, watching documentaries. Why should using a search engine to gain knowledge any different from the other examples?

[hotrod4]

Using google for debates is a good thing as its great for research.
BUT it can be a bad thing if someone who is posting doesnt have an inkling what their "copying and pasting".

Using it for your research and reference is great but I like to read peoples own words as it gives you an insight into who that person REALLY is as opposed to "what they know".
After all is "what they know" ACTUALLY "what they know" or "what they paste"?

Anyone can come on a forum and paste replies etc taken from the web, but its the "human" response I find interesting.

I would be much happier disagreeing with a "human" opinion than agreeing with a "google" opinion,as at least that person has used their own opinion and not that of Bill Gates ;)

[Fesman]

I subscribe to a website that has several forums available for members to use. One of those forums is called "Tech Talk"

It is used by members who are having technical problems with their computer, phone, TV or whatever. Some of the queries are mundane and others require a fair amount of questioning and troubleshooting before a solution may be found.

I am a former technician, so the forum interests me.

Some of the responses to queries are good, but many try to solve problems using guesswork and ignorance. Some responses offer plainly incorrect or even, dangerous solutions.

That's usually the time I explain a workable solution.

It's impossible to know everything and oft-times I have used Google to seek solutions. Sifting out the relevant information can be difficult, at times, but I know what I'm looking for.

I'm never too proud to say that "I Googled it" and that is better than having a user being offered false or dangerous "help"

It's not about whether to Google, but, how to Google

[northener]

Where do people get knowledge from? Personal experience, reading books, watching documentaries. Why should using a search engine to gain knowledge any different from the other examples?

True, TBH. I agree with you.

Reading back my original post, perhaps it would be better worded thus:

Looking at some posts on the forum, there is almost a scattergun approach to the authors words. - Multiple references to relatively obscure people, ideologies and events that, whilst being connected to the discussion in hand, appear serve no real purpose apart giving the author an air of superior knowledge.

For example, I know absolutely nothing about DNA profiling.
Yet I'm pretty sure that I could wade into a discussion on the subject in a 'General' forum such as this, (armed to the teeth with various Professors' names and refences to obscure tracts and theories gleaned from the internet 5 minutes beforehand) and give a pretty good impression of someone who knows what they are talking about.
It would have to be a pretty dogged layman researcher or someone who knows their subject well to suss me out......

So what I'm saying is that using the Interweb to source information is one thing, but is it acceptable behaviour to then present this information in such a way as to give one an air of 'pre-knowledge'.
Should we be more open about what we say and where those words come from?

Or looking at it another way, if these discussions were taking place down the pub (with no access to the Bodleain Library or the Interweb), would we get the same level of perceived knowledge from some people that we get on here?

Or am I talking crapp?

[Rheghead]

It's not about whether to Google, but, how to Google

Also, I would probably include knowing what to Google as well. Mostly I already know about what I want to Google for the sake of inclusion as a reference in a post. Since a great deal of my interest is mostly scientific then opinion is usually precluded, I don't need an opinion iow.

[TBH]

True, TBH. I agree with you.

Reading back my original post, perhaps it would be better worded thus:

Looking at some posts on the forum, there is almost a scattergun approach to the authors words. - Multiple references to relatively obscure people, ideologies and events that, whilst being connected to the discussion in hand, appear serve no real purpose apart giving the author an air of superior knowledge.

For example, I know absolutely nothing about DNA profiling.
Yet I'm pretty sure that I could wade into a discussion on the subject in a 'General' forum such as this, (armed to the teeth with various Professors' names and refences to obscure tracts and theories gleaned from the internet 5 minutes beforehand) and give a pretty good impression of someone who knows what they are talking about.
It would have to be a pretty dogged layman researcher or someone who knows their subject well to suss me out......

So what I'm saying is that using the Interweb to source information is one thing, but is it acceptable behaviour to then present this information in such a way as to give one an air of 'pre-knowledge'.
Should we be more open about what we say and where those words come from?

Or looking at it another way, if these discussions were taking place down the pub (with no access to the Bodleain Library or the Interweb), would we get the same level of perceived knowledge from some people that we get on here?

Or am I talking crapp?The more you think about this the more complex an issue it becomes. If you are down the pub having a discussion with your mates then you would indeed have to rely on what is stored in your napper but that is where the internet comes into it's own. If a subject grips you then I think it is great that you can access information so readily. Most people that wish to debate online are going to learn something and are likely to do a web search on various subjects or even word meanings that they may be unsure of. In the pub you agree to disagree or take it outside but on an internet forum you are learning the whole time.[lol]

[Melancholy Man]

I'd agree with Scorrie. Google or wiki are great for referencing facts I know already, but not for constructing arguments from scratch.

[TBH]

I'd agree with Scorrie. Google or wiki are great for referencing facts I know already, but not for constructing arguments from scratch.Where did you aquire these facts though?
Are facts read in a book any more relevant than facts gained from a web search?

[badger]

I'm an ardent Googler and use it all the time to get information, check things out etc. but wouldn't quote from any online source and claim it as my own. It's easy enough to credit the reference or supply a link.

[arana negra]

Like badger I google a lot for info on a vast variety of things but am sensible (sometimes) enough not to believe it all and not to cut and paste willy nilly. As said it is no use cut and pasting if you don't understand the content.

I do find that I am NOT very good at what I put in as don't always get to what I am looking for.

[scotsboy]

Not sure if I should say this out loud, but some things you see/read on the Internet (particularly on Wikipedia) are inaccurate, and in some cases just wrong. That does not mean they are not useful, just not the place to base your research of a subject upon.

[Sun Circle]

Not sure if I should say this out loud, but some things you see/read on the Internet (particularly on Wikipedia) are inaccurate, and in some cases just wrong. That does not mean they are not useful, just not the place to base your research of a subject upon.

I agree with you 100%. Unless you already have a good background knowledge of the subject, its very easy to be misled by information published on the web. How can you know whether the "expert" whose words of wisdom you are reading is really an expert in their field?

To publish information in a book or a journal, you have to go through an editor, a publisher and their legal department (whose job it is to take liability issues seriously). Whereas to publish information on the web, all you have to do is set up a domain name and press the "publish now" button.

I love google and I google all the time, but it really gets my goat when people who are obviously uninformed on a topic use googled information as the sole basis of their argument. It sticks out like a sore thumb to anyone who is informed on the subject, but it can seriously mislead any unfortunate soul that is new to the debated topic.

I trust published paper sources first and use the internet as a useful tool to keep up to date on what's new.

Sun Circle

[Melancholy Man]

Where did you aquire these facts though?
Are facts read in a book any more relevant than facts gained from a web search?

Depends which book. I'll expand: reputable news sources and peer reviewed literature.

[TBH]

Depends which book. I'll expand: reputable news sources and peer reviewed literature.There are many reputable sources of information on the internet so it's all good.

[Melancholy Man]

There are many reputable sources of information on the internet so it's all good.

There are indeed, but if you know of them, you don't need Google. We've all seen single pages being given as conclusive proof to some argument. The better ones are those which draw from said peer reviewed literature.

[northener]

I think the big danger with online info is that that it is very easy to publish your pet quack theories online. One only has took have a quick look around the interweb to see that maybe some people aren't basing their information on actual facts...

Vanity publishing aside, written work has to get past a publisher who will have to spend a large lump to bring the book to the people. So it follows that they're going to be a damn sight more picky about what they publish.

Before anyone says it, I know that many books hit the shops that are absolute cobblers, but they are there because they sell. Generally speaking though, the printed word is given a damn sight more scrutiny than a lot of online publications.
.