Group items tagged

"My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." I disagree with this quote because I believe that technology spits out information but humans have to put it together to form knowledge. I don't think knowledge could be devalued by an abundance of information, I think that with more information there should be more accurate knowledge because that means more perspectives are available. Larry Sanger is making it sound like it's a bad thing to have more knowledgeable people in the world. Sure it's less impressive when people know facts but isn't it better to have an overall more educated society? "In fact, on many online knowledge websites, we often have no names, pictures, or any information at all, about the people that we converse or work with online." Why is this important considering people don't personally know writers of books either? Adding on to my question: we don't always know how biased factual books are either or if all of the sources were cited so why is the internet any less trustworthy?

"The Internet is making this old and difficult problem even worse. If we had an abundance of information in, say, the 1970s, the Internet has created a superabundance of information today." Larry Sanger, the author of this article, is talking about the internet with such distaste. He tells us that in the old days, there was already an abundance of information in books and t.v. shows - the only problem was, you had to search through those book and watch all of those shows for the one snippet of information you were looking for. I am disagreeing with what Sanger said in this quote. Although, yes, there may be more information than we know what to do with, but the purpose of the internet is not to inundate us with information; with this invention, we can easily find the one piece of knowledge we needed without having to read a whole book or watch a whole movie. "The more that information piles up on Internet servers around the world, and the easier it is for that information to be found, the less distinctive and attractive that knowledge will appear by comparison." Just because there is more information to be seen, it does not lower the appearance of knowledge. Just because something valuable is surrounded by non-important things, it does not lower the value of the original object (or, in this case, knowledge). Therefore, I am disagreeing with this assertion as well. "The Internet is less a publishing operation than a giant conversation." Couldn't this be beneficial? Isn't this similar to group work or crowdsourcing? People are working together to put out new ideas that others may not have thought of. At the same time, if someone says something that is incorrect, others can correct them and provide truth information which can turn into knowledge if its reader so desires. "But if I then read the news in a few other, more credible sources, then my belief becomes much better justified, and then I can be said to know." But since there is

"Information is easy, knowledge is difficult" this was the title and stuck out more then anything in this passage. Have we lost knowledge due to knowledge? now that i think about it everything im learning in school is information, things i go on the web for are just information. Are we losing knowledge? "It's a very old observation that the most ignorant people are usually full of opinions, while many of the most knowledgeable people are full of doubt." i do not fully agree to this quote because i feel that most knowledgeable people would not be full of doubt because they are knowledgeable to know they should not feel so much doubt. "But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you. So while information becomes nearly instantaneous and dead simple, knowledge is looking like a doddering old uncle." true.

"First, we can make a role for experts in Internet communities. Of course, make the role so that does not conflict with what makes the community work. Don't simply put all the reins of authority in the hands of your experts; doing that would ensure that the project remains a project by and for experts, and of relatively little broader impact. But give them the authority to approve content, for example, or to post reviews, or other modest but useful tasks. My hope is that, when the general public work under the "bottom up" guidance of experts, this will have some good effects." A fitting video response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNTk29zXl4A This contradicts much of what I feel was discussed in the article. One of the points being the anonymity involved in sharing information and knowledge. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog. And no one knows you're an expert, either. It would also diminish the allure that everyone on the internet is essentially equal. I like that the internet is an equal playing field, and for the most part I am not concerned about biased, half-baked, or false knowledge on the internet. I don't venture onto forums, comments section, or discussion boards all too often when looking for information. I don't think being corrupted by conspiracy theories or half truths is something the average internet user encounters often, and when they do, they should know to be somewhat skeptical. And when false facts spread around the internet like "Albert Einstein failed math in highschool!!1" or "marijuana will cure your cold~!", they aren't very important and to anyone who cares to figure it out can find information to contradict this with a google search. " The point is that most of the stuff that you typically find on the Internet is pretty lightweight. It's Info Lite." It really depends. When I go on the internet for amusement I can read books, the news, look at peoples art and learn a language. Or I can go on Facebook (which I don't thi

"Information is easy, knowledge is difficult." Although this is only the first line of the reading multiple thoughts came crashing through my thought stream. I mainly want to comment that I agree fully with this quote. The reason is because having information and having knowledge are completely different. Having information is just like simply memorizing facts for a test while having knowledge of something is knowing about the subject on various different levels and somewhat in depth. One question that I have pertaining to this quote is: Should schools start to ensure that children have knowledge on a topic rather than just retain information so that they will have it in the long term? I personally think that this would be a really good idea to integrate into school, especially with high school student because it will aid them greatly in the long run. "On a certain utopian view, no one should be held up as an expert, and no one should be dismissed as a crackpot. All views, from all people, about all subjects, should be considered with equal respect." I find this quote really interesting. I think that it is an interesting perspective to make it so everyone has view and opinions that are viewed equally. But I feel like if that were to be true and everyone thoughts were viewed as being equal what would happen to the title of "expert"? Would there still be experts? What if an idea were so completely and utterly ridiculous? Would we still keep to the utopian view and view it equally as the "better" opinions of the same particular subject?

"Google, by the way, was responsible for two thirds of those searches." That is crazy that two thirds of the six millions searches done in December of 2007 were googled! But when I really thought about it, I personally do rely on Google quite a lot, and so do many others. Google is a quick way to search the web about a question or fact and get the answer quickly. What would the internet be like if Google never existed? Would the internet be a completely different? "…superabundance of information devalues knowledge, because the means of solid knowledge are decidedly more difficult and less sexy than the Info Lite that it is so easy to find online." I don't necessarily agree with this quote, I mean I can see where he's going with his argument, but I do think that there is solid knowledge that is easy to find, I'm looking more at a medical stand point though. There are really good medical websites like WebMD and Mayo clinic and of course any hospital/doctors websites. In this case, finding the knowledge is easy, but it just might not be as understandable to a normal person who has no background in the medical field.

" The sources that are more likely to help you in your quest for knowledge look very boring by comparison. My point here is that the superabundance of information devalues knowledge, because the means of solid knowledge are decidedly more difficult and less sexy than the Info Lite that it is so easy to find online." -What if we made Knowledge nicer to look at? Some people prefer cold knowledge over just information even if it looks less "sexy". What if it was easier to find knowledge? In this world where knowledge is so easy to find and all you can find is encyclopedias online about a certain topic then wouldn't people complain about having not enough small bits of information? Do we need a perfect blend of knowledge and information or is one truly better than the other? "Having "information at our fingertips," clearly, sometimes makes us skip the hard thinking that knowledge requires." -I think that even the smallest bits of information can be thought about. It could be something so simple but yet you could pose so many questions and think about it deeply. You may just be looking in the wrong place. The person describing whats happening here is lazy people. There are others on the internet who could write so much about such simple information. There are also huge things about knowledge that make people skip hard thinking as well. It goes both ways.

"To be quite sure of an answer still requires comparing multiple sources, critical thinking, sometimes a knowledge of statistics and mathematics, and a careful attention to detail" - It's cool that we've studied how sites like wolfram alpha does that part for us! Though this article points out that this may not be a good thing - this is making it even easier for us to obtain information by doing the critical thinking for us. Maybe we should be putting more effort into the info we gain so that we may hold it at a higher value and connect it more to the big picture, hence turning it into knowledge. "Before the Internet, we were already awash in information." - I've never thought about this before! It's true, we already did have too much for one person to be able to understand, and then with the internet, information was almost devalued again. "The point is that most of the stuff that you typically find on the Internet is pretty lightweight. It's Info Lite." - I find this kind of scary. Our world is becoming shallower and shallower. We have information, but because we have so much at our finger tips, it would have to really stand out to convince us to explore it further. I wonder what effect this might have on the future? "Being a skeptic, I would actually say that we can't have knowledge about such complex issues, or at least, not very certain knowledge - I'm kind of in the middle about this one. I feel like there is knowledge out there about these complex issues, it just has to be sorted through the opinion. You can have an opinion on something and also have knowledge on it!

Quote: "But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you." Thought: You have to think for yourself, so always make sure the knowledge you recieve seems reasonable and don't always let the first information you hear become your knowledge. Make sure you are open minded before you open your mouth to speak what you think. Quote:" If we include a modest role for experts in more of our Internet communities, we'll have better information to begin with, and better role models" Thought: I keep questioning this quote, because how do you define an "expert". If he wants us to have experts release information to society, how are we going to find these experts. So because one guy may have a masters degree in the subject he is considered an "expert" rather than someone who wasn't able to receive a degree but has been studying in the field for far longer than the "expert". I just don't understand how they don't except the knowledge from someone who had experience in the field.

"My point here is that the superabundance of information devalues knowledge, because the means of solid knowledge are decidedly more difficult and less sexy than the Info Lite that it is so easy to find online." Yes and no... Ok, a nice video summing up the big lines of a History topic will be far more interesting than a heavy web page discussing about it in terribly small characters. But then, what if the content was the same ? Why bother with the web page ? I think it is about the format, at some point, and also about what you decide to do with the information. "The more that we study issues, and justify our beliefs, the more likely our beliefs are to be correct." How I wish this was true ! But I sometimes fell like the more I look after an answer, the harder it is to say if I'm getting closer. For example : I was reading this book about being a vegetarian, hoping it would help me determine whether I should eat meat or not... It only confused me more. So I allow myself to doubt this statement.

"My point here is that the superabundance of information devalues knowledge, because the means of solid knowledge are decidedly more difficult and less sexy than the Info Lite that it is so easy to find online." Never having really lived without the internet, I can't say I'm extremely qualified to answer to this, but I don't think that the laziness and lack of desire for solid knowledge is something that the internet invented. I think that there are people who will not search for solid knowledge know when they can have Info Lite, and they would not have searched for solid knowledge when it meant doing hours of research in the library. Isn't it better that they at least have some level of knowledge now? In addition, while "true" knowledge may still be difficult to find, I still believe it is easy than it used to be, with this superabundance of information that we can sift through. For this reason, perhaps more people will take this time to find true knowledge. I can see some people ignoring deep knowledge for "Info Lite", but it isn't fair to make that assumption about all people. "Well, I think many of us would actually trust an anonymous person more than we would trust our more eccentric acquaintances." I think that at some point, when the internet was newer, there was a tendency to accept it as an undisputed expert. The internet was an unknown, something new and technological and the people that were posting on it must know what they're talking about. But as we have started using the internet more and more in our everyday lives, as we have realized that we can post absolutely whatever we want on the internet with little to no repercussions, other people can do the same as well. We have learned to be discerning in our acceptance of the facts we find on the internet. "If it's on the internet, it must be true" is said sarcastically every time someone collects an unbelievable fact from the internet.

ARTICLE: How the Internet is Changing What We Think We Know: Quotation: "Here you might wonder: if justification, and therefore knowledge, is really so difficult, then why go to all the trouble?" No, I've never wondered. But now that you bring it up, it is a good point. Why bother? For me, I guess I just have a desire to know. I want to understand the people and the world around me. I want to make sense of the chaos. I think that's why we go through all the trouble: because we want to impose the illusion of order upon the chaotic universe. So we create beliefs and support those beliefs so that we can, by extension, support our world view. Quotation: "I've always been personally uncomfortable representing myself online in any other way than how I really am." Online, I'm generally similar to myself. I don't create avatars, really, because I don't play games that require it. As a personality, I usually represent myself as I do in person. If you meet me on Nerdfighteria.org you will find a Star Trek nerd who loves to write but can't spell. I don't pretend to be smarter than I am or any less nerdy. But the problem, of course, is that I don't know if other people are being as honest as I am. How can I know? So I am a little more guarded. But of course all this begs the question: what is your identity? I'm a *generally* consistent person in how I act in different social settings, but many people oscillate even in person ("first life"). Sure, in avatars there is a clear cut line as to how you represent yourself, but what about on a wider context? Just because people reinvent themselves online, does that mean that person that they have become is any less real?

"For all that, knowledge is, I'm afraid, not getting much easier. To be quite sure of an answer still requires comparing multiple sources, critical thinking, sometimes a knowledge of statistics and mathematics, and a careful attention to detail when it comes to understanding texts. In short, knowledge still requires hard thought. Sure, technology is a great time-saver in various ways; it has certainly made research easier, and it will become only more so. But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you. So while information becomes nearly instantaneous and dead simple, knowledge is looking like a doddering old uncle." I feel like this passage is relating our "superabundance" of information to "cheating", as if looking up a quick fact online is like copying someone's homework. But with the growing complexity of our world and how it works, I think we need this "cheating". We can no longer have a full understanding of everything in a certain subject; there's just too much to know. We're gonna need our cheat sheets.

"Philosophers since Plato have been saying that knowledge is actually a special kind of belief. It must be true, first of all, and it must also be justified, or have good reasons or evidence to support it." The quote says knowledge must be "true", but that creates problems in many fields where something that is believed to be true is actually false. Any day some discovery could be made which disproves a widely believed fact. This is especially possible in science, where, throughout history, there have been discoveries like this which have toppled hundreds of years of science. The same could happen with our fundamental scientific beliefs. Does that mean they are not "knowledge"?

"For all that, knowledge is, I'm afraid, not getting much easier. To be quite sure of an answer still requires comparing multiple sources, critical thinking, sometimes a knowledge of statistics and mathematics, and a careful attention to detail when it comes to understanding texts." I disagree that it is harder to find needed data. You just need to know the best place for finding the need information. for the previously mentioned scenario of needing to find the population of France, it would very easy to go to the CIA world fact book. this is a very reliable resource because it is a government service given to the public. "In short, we are reading reams of content written by amateurs, without the benefit of editors, which means we must as it were be our own editors. But many of us, I'm afraid, do not seem to be prepared for the job." this is quite a hyperbole because most of the true scientific information is written by professionals who know what they are talking about. The main things that are written by random Joes are blogs and other needless information. The reason that we are reading "reams of content" by amatuers is that the way the school systems are structured there is very little specialization. When back in the 1800s and earlier a boy would go and become an apprentice at the age of 9 or 10 and he becomes very educated in that one subject and leaves the other knowledge to others.

"Now, the Internet is a different sort of knowledge source. The Internet is very different, importantly different, from both face-to-face conversation and from the traditional media. Let's talk about that. The Internet has been called, again, a giant conversation. But it's a very unusual conversation, if so. For one thing, it's not a face-to-face conversation." The internet is an extremely different source of information than getting information from talking to someone face to face. When one is talking to another, one could easily see if they are joking, if they are possibly lying or if they are telling the truth. This gives us, the listener, more confidence of knowing or understanding the information or not. When we look up information on the internet, we cannot see if the internet is stating the truth or not. We cannot read it emotions. When one hears something, they become more aware of the information, but when we read information, we usually skim through and its harder for us to take it more seriously. This why it is better to get information from another person, if it's true or not, than read it on the internet.

"It's a very old observation that the most ignorant people are usually full of opinions, while many of the most knowledgeable people are full of doubt." Though a bit backwards, the truth in this quote is not easily ignored. Somehow, ignorance is almost always synonymous with being outspoken. Those who are ignorant are ignorant of their own ignorance, and, therefore, think that their opinions are the ones that need to be heard. Knowledgeable people, however, know that there is no true fact; there is only theory. They know that this is how we learn - by constantly doubting what we know. Because they are so full of doubt at their own knowledge, they do not profess them as an ignorant person would. "Easy information devalues hard knowledge." The author continues to say that the easy information on the internet is at fault for the devaluation of knowledge, but the internet is not the first to do so. We have been in a constant war with information vs. knowledge. In schools, students that take tests well are praised for being smart, but, in all reality, they may as well just be good at taking tests. This "knowledge" cannot be carried into the real world. Since the very creation of testing in school, we have valued information storage and testing skills over real knowledge and skills. The internet is certainly not to blame for this very old phenomenon.

"For all that, knowledge is, I'm afraid, not getting much easier...In short, knowledge still requires hard thought." I believe that knowledge will never get easier. Technology does give us an advantage into better understanding what knowledge is, but we will never fully understand what it truly is. Even with all the technology in the world "Knowledge still requires hard thought." Knowledge is meant to be someone that perplexes the human mind and makes you think. "The Internet is less a publishing operation than a giant conversation." It's like everyone is their own boss. There is no one there to watch over you and see everything that you type. They can't edit it before you publish it. What you write is what you write. This is both an advantage and disadvantage. It's an advantage because it means people can write whatever they want to. There is no limit and they can speak their mind, however it is also bad because most people don't think before they do things and that means that they could publish something that they would regret.

"Easy information devalues hard knowledge." This statement is flawed. I believe that just because information might be easy to obtain, it doesn't mean that your knowledge of the subject is any less significant. I feel that it doesn't matter where or how you get the information, but more of whether or not you're able to retain it. Because of the internet, it's so easy to gather new information to boost your knowledge, and I found myself disagreeing with a lot of what Larry Sanger had to say, however, when he said the statement listed above, that's when it really struck me hard. I think the internet does not lower your knowledge levels, but instead helps boost it. It's totally possible for people to learn just from the internet, instead of having to go to school. Yeah it might be more difficult, but it's still doable. I do understand that knowledge and information are two very different things, but knowledge can grow off of the information that you discover. Information is the root of all knowledge.

"information is easy, knowledge is difficult" This is a quote from the reading and also one of the main ideas that is discussed and explored in the passage. It is very truthful and also very easy for me to analyse as I fully agree with it. This quote caused me to think about the difference between information and knowledge and allowed me to question, to what extent are they different? In my opinion information is easy as it is indeed very easy to find and the take in, especially in this age of the internet where answers can be found by the push of a button. Although this information can be given and pertained, this doesn't necessarily mean that a person takes it in as knowledge. I think that information is only knowledge after it is fully understood and the person is able to apply the information in a number of ways with an in depth understanding of the subject( or whatever the form of the information may be ). That is why knowledge can be refered to as 'difficult', as it takes some sort of hard thought to understand the information that is given to turn it into something the person knows and understands thoroughly. This is when it can become knowledge. The author even says himself "knowledge still requires hard thought". "The Internet is making this old and difficult problem even worse. If we had an abundance of information in, say, the 1970's, the Internet has created a superabundance of information today." I partially disagree with this quote as i do not feel that the internet is making the issue of information worse. In my opinion, i think that it is essentially making the abundance of it better; by organization and computation of this information. Yes, i do agree to note that we have a superabundance of information today, but who says this is necessarily a bad thing? The information has made it substantially easier to access anything that you want, whenever you want, which is very helpful and as far as i can see, in no way creating a problem. It has become a

"First, we can make a role for experts in Internet communities. Of course, make the role so that does not conflict with what makes the community work. Don't simply put all the reins of authority in the hands of your experts; doing that would ensure that the project remains a project by and for experts, and of relatively little broader impact. But give them the authority to approve content..." (paragraph 31) i dont know about what you think but it kind of whispers "Big-brother is watching" to me. with this guy being a professional at telling me things like knowing is not knowing and friends are enemies, i feel like they might just start instituting mini-pax, and mini-plenty centers over the internet. and i would not be able to break free. solution number one in his two solutions of plans seems a bit strange. but thats just me. and maybe George Orwell too. "In short, we get knowledge either directly from other people, or indirectly, through various media." would he rather we gain knowledge from non media that is not a person other than ourselves directly? i fail to see the practicality in this guy's ideas and images of what we have become, and how we could improve. because last time i checked my 80% + daily fill of knowledge and my 40%+ lifetime memory of knowledge has been given to me by school, friends or family. i don't know if he is saying that is wrong or if he insinuates that i really mean tv and computer instead of school and family but im not sure he got it right.

"It's a very old observation that the most ignorant people are usually full of opinions, while many of the most knowledgeable people are full of doubt." I agree with this because you see it every day. Some people can think they are extremely smart in a subject and become very arrogant about it. They will keep saying the information over and over again to try and get more followers but in reality they are only putting people off; especially if they go out and send 15 billion emails or AD's to everyone. They also do not follow all of the facts, they only tell you the good to try and get people to join them. Sometimes they do not even follow the true facts; they shove in their own opinions and will not listen to the voice of another. For example, the political parties, Democrats and Republicans, neither party is willing to listen to the other people's opinions. They believe that their opinion is the only correct opinion. While the people with real knowledge doubt their knowledge because the arrogant people keep shoving their opinions down their throats. " I fear that the Internet has already greatly weakened our sense of what is distinctive about knowledge, and why it is worth seeking." When reading this quote out of the article it actually surprised me that I agreed with the statement. In so many ways the internet has weakened our senses of knowledge. We do not fully consume the researcher that we find; we just use the information and just toss it out of our mind when we finish with it. With the internet as a huge search engine now we do not understand why we have to do the research. We have become so lazy that if we went to a library and had to use encyclopedias we would still not know what to do.Also when I read this it made me question myself: Do I actually understand and process the research I find or do I simply take it in and then let it go?

"In short, we are reading reams of content written by amateurs, without the benefit of editors, which means we must as it were be our own editors. But many of us, I'm afraid, do not seem to be prepared for the job." I disagree with this. I feel that we are too dependent on "experts" and what we think is "reliable" information so we completely skip the editing process and just believe what they say to be true. With all the information there is online, I feel it stimulates our brain more to pick and choose our reliable data and to edit the not so reliable data. When editing the looser articles and information into your own words, you're doing exactly that; using your own words, instead of the words from "experts" "My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." I disagree. I feel that just because there is a mass amount of information on the internet, it does not devalue knowledge. I feel that it doesn't matter where or how you get the information, but more of how you're able to retain it and what you take away from it. Even false information are stepping stones to being knowledgeable about true information. If you read an article saying how pears lead to kidney failure, then realizing and knowing that eating pears don't lead to kidney failure is still knowledge

"information is easy, knowledge is difficult" This quote was portrayed in the title and is extremely interesting because getting information is easy now days. We have easy access to the internet, books, and many resources, but knowledge is the difficult thing to master. To receive a book is easy but to understand the book is difficult. Luckily there are teachers and professionals to teach others knowledge, but it is still extremely hard with mentors and teachers. This quote stresses how there is a difference between containing information from resources like article and booklets and actually having knowledge about the topic like understanding what's going on and how it works and why it does the things it does. "I fear that the Internet has already greatly weakened our sense of what is distinctive about knowledge," I agree with the statement because I feel that sometimes people abuse the internet and it underestimate its capabilities and what one can learn and contain knowledge from. I feel that people always look for the easy way out and it is extremely simple to just get information from the internet rather than understanding the material which is why the internet is kind of in a way abused.

"In fact, on many online knowledge websites, we often have no names, pictures, or any information at all, about the people that we converse or work with online." I think this is a bit irrelevant to be honest. I mean, at school, we dont know the teachers on the first days of school, but we still trust that everything they know and are sharing with us is correct? Or books, yes we know the name of the author of a book, and if we are lucky, the back flap of the book has a paragraph about the author, but we have no connection what so ever with them! These examples are really no different than the internet which is why I think this opinion does not coincide with mine. "information is easy, knowledge is difficult" So after I read this article, I decided to read through this feed of comments on quotes and the one above mine (haelee's) really hit me. She makes such a valid point about how it is so easy to get information these days, whether it be from the internet, people or books, but knowledge is not the same. Then again, what is the difference between information and knowledge. Some would argue that they are interchangeable.

"The point is that most of the stuff that you typically find on the Internet is pretty lightweight." This is not true. Often on the internet I have found scientific journals and even free books online! In fact I have found over 1,250 pages of rescores from government websites and University papers online for my EE. The internet has loads of information, granted it does have pointless web sites such as MEME BASE and Facebook. But the internet has lots of good information and knowledge that is accessible to everyone everywhere. I think that as the internet gets older and its full potential is reached than we will see even heaver weight things. For example the Library of Congress is planning and in the progress of digitizing all of its books for use on the internet. I feel like the author of this article didn't really think about what they were saying before they said it. There is no basis for his argument, you can now buy books on the internet. How can we make search engines smarter to be able to tell if we want a lot of information or not? "To passively absorb information from the Internet, without caring about whether we have good reasons for what we believe, is really to roll the dice" I don't think that is it a role of the dice. I mean maybe if you believe everything you see or hear about on the internet but if you are careful and listen to everything that is said. You just have to be careful about how you interpret the data that you collect from online. The data could be presented you to in a negative light and that would make the subject seem bad! Others may paint a bad thing in good light so it looks good. You just have to be careful of everything you see and hear on the internet. How can we teach children about the dangers but also the advantages of the internet?

"Information is easy, knowledge is difficult." It seems that this is a popular quote! When we are given information in school, it is easy to retain and repeat. But when we string information to create concepts and events and the information is given depth, it becomes knowledge. And this knowledge is what we find difficult to comprehend and explain. When we are asked to connect these concepts, it becomes even more difficult. Applying the knowledge is also very difficult. I think one reason why knowledge is so difficult is because in school, people aren't gaining knowledge, just information. They don't know how to make connections with information and form ideas and concepts. Being able to regurgitate facts isn't knowing, despite what people may think otherwise. "On a certain utopian view, no one should be held up as an expert, and no one should be dismissed as a crackpot. All views, from all people, about all subjects, should be considered with equal respect." AMEN BROTHER! Just because someone is put into a category or is labeled, does NOT mean that they do not know anything outside of that category/label. Also, just because someone may be considered an expert does not mean that they're word is final. These labels are misleading. I know a few people who some may write off and overlook because they have a negative label. Yet they are extremely bright, and some of the most insightful people that I know! Dismissing or exalting someone based on a label is no different than judging someone based on a stereotype.

"Information is easy, knowledge is difficult." While beginning the reading, this quote really popped out at me making my mind flare up with thoughts. I want to say that i totally agree with this quote because information is just memory but knowledge is way more. When a teacher gives you a test on just information, all you have to do is use your memory even if you don't understand it completely. Knowledge is something that you must understand because when you have knowledge in a field, you can apply your self in many different ways. Knowledge is gained from doing where as information is gained from listening or reading. All and all i totally agree with this quote!

"My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." The first thing that i want to point out is that i do not agree with this quote. I know that there is a vast amount of information on the internet but i do not believe that devalues it. Everyone retains and understands information differently so i believe that how you retain the info is how valuable it is. Just because there is a vast amount of information doesn't mean that our information is not as valuable. All information is valuable to some extent but its how you use it that really shows how valuable that information is.

"Google is a veritable oracle of truth. The problem is recognizing truth, and distinguishing it from falsehood. The ocean of information online contains a huge amount of truth. The difficulty comes in knowing when you've got it." I agree with this. So many people go on Google and expect and rely on it to be correct simply because it comes up. Not everything on Google is the truth. Though, its very hard to weed through the truth and false on Google. Near impossible, actually. So, how can we only have truth on a website like Google? Its hard to know, and sometimes we just have to use our better judgment to pull out the truth that's hidden within the rest of the made up lies that can be found on the internet.

"Google, by the way, was responsible for two thirds of those searches." I read over some peoples posts to get other perspectives and Kelly K wrote something pretty amazing. She wrote the question "What if google never existed?" and "What would the world be like without google?" I can't imagine the world without Google. I use Google everyday. How would I research or find things. So many me, like myself, rely on Google. Google helps me find information about anything and everything. I can't even picture life without Google. "Information is easy, knowledge is difficult." I agree with this quote. Finding information and getting information is easy. You can research it or be taught it. But keeping that information and knowing it is hard. To have that information is harder than most people think. How do you keep knowledge? How does your brain store so much? We know so much! How do we keep that all in our brain? Does our brain ever stop taking in knowledge? We live for around 80-90 years. So will there be a point where you can't learn anymore cause your brain is stored up? "Well, I think many of us would actually trust an anonymous person more than we would trust our more eccentric acquaintances." That's so true! We get our knowledge off places like the internet and we just trust that it is reliable. Why do we trust the information? Who taught us to trust it? Why do we trust it? This question blows my mind! I have been getting information off the internet for so long. I never thought that maybe some of that information could be false or unreliable. That never would question my mind. I knew not always to trust websites like Wikipedia but why do we all trust the internet?

"It's a very old observation that the most ignorant people are usually full of opinions, while many of the most knowledgeable people are full of doubt." I fully agree with this! Ignorant people always have opinions and stuff to say. But i never thought about that knowledgeable people are full of doubt. The knowledgeable will question things. Have doubt in things because it isn't realistic. Even thought they know so much they doubt it. Why do they doubt things?

"Google is a veritable oracle of truth. The problem is recognizing truth, and distinguishing it from falsehood. The ocean of information online contains a huge amount of truth. The difficulty comes in knowing when you've got it." I agree with this in the fact that it is hard to find the truth in google because of the excess of information but having an excess of knowledge is good because having this much information lets us be able to do things like being able to learn from our mistakes , it can provide new things for the future and branch off of new things once thought as excess and unnecessary.I believe that the sharing of knowledge has, made the world more innovative as a whole, and also created a sense of community among the internet peoples from all different nationalities. "My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." I disagree with this statement because i don't like how this author is insinuating that this excess of knowledge is a bad thing because i think that the bad effects of having excess information like it being harder to find what we need and finding the truth. Does not compare to the good of having this much information like being able to learn from our mistakes , it can provide new things for the future and branch off of new things once thought as excess and unnecessary.I believe that the sharing of knowledge has, made the world more innovative as a whole, and also created a sense of community among the internet peoples from all different nationalities.

" People who care very much about getting their facts right generally consult authoritative sources; they don't usually get their knowledge from casual conversation with friends and relatives." I disagree with this statement because even if you need to get your facts straight does not mean you know everything that ever was or will be. They can still get knowledge from casual conversations and they can always check up on their facts later. "Of course, we are able to spot really daft stuff no matter who it comes from. " I disagree with this statement too, there are tons of people who totally believe the really daft stuff on the internet. One of the things we are always told is don't believe everything you read. Someone has to believe it if it is being told. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.

For all that, knowledge is, I'm afraid, not getting much easier. To be quite sure of an answer still requires comparing multiple sources, critical thinking, sometimes a knowledge of statistics and mathematics, and a careful attention to detail when it comes to understanding texts. In short, knowledge still requires hard thought. Even though this should be true, it isn't. With today's millennial, if something is found once, we tend to be quite sure of it. For instance, when people heard that Kony 2012 was a scam, people just believed it and never did any further research. People thought that about 37% of donations going to direct help was bad. Meanwhile, huge organizations such as Susan G. Komen for Breast Cancer only donate about 30% to direct help. Also, IC spends almost 17% on overhead,but the WWF spends somewhere from 20-30% on overhead. Lastly, people complain about the CEO getting $90,000/yr when many major heads get >$500K/yr.

For example, let's suppose I read something for the first time on some random blog, such as that Heath Ledger died. Suppose I just uncritically believe this. Well, even if it's true, I don't know that it is true, because random blogs make up stuff all the time. A blog saying something really isn't a good enough reason to believe it. But if I then read the news in a few other, more credible sources, then my belief becomes much better justified, and then I can be said to know. I just have one question. How many sources does one need to go to to officially call it knowledge?

"My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge" I completely disagree with this quote. I don't understand how Larry Sanger could say this about knowledge. Wouldn't it make sense to say that the more information that we surround ourselves with, the more knowledge we will be able to obtain. Isn't that why teachers and parents always tell children to read as much books as possible, that way we can try to be as intelligent as possible. "Google, by the way, was responsible for two thirds of those searches."' I believe this quote because i use google everyday. It is the main website that i use to search for any information that i need for my life. I wouldn't know what to do if google never existed. And i am happy to say that i am a part of those two thirds people because i think that google is an amazing website to use; it never lets me down.

"In short, knowledge still requires hard thought. Sure, technology is a great time-saver in various ways; it has certainly made research easier, and it will become only more so. But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you." The internet has made access to information very easy. Almost everything is now has a digital copy on the web. Information and facts are easy to find but knowledge and learning is not easy. No one can learn for you are know your thoughts and what you're thinking. If more information gets put on the internet, will knowledge lose its value because the information is so accessible? "Knowledge matters, and as wonderful a tool for knowledge as the Internet can be, it can also devalue knowledge." Some information is not true information and facts. How do we know what information is true or not? How can we have all this information and very little knowledge processed from the existing infromation?

"Now, the Internet is a different sort of knowledge source. The Internet is very different, importantly different, from both face-to-face conversation and from the traditional media" I agree with this statement because like the article stated the Internet is like a conversation of knowledge being passed from one to another but It's a conversation where someone would be a information source and anyone who would want to know that certain information would start a conversation with the source. This shows that everything we do now a days is a short cut and we don't have to do the hard work like back then. I don't think this is a good thing because certain experience is not gained from this but I don't think it's a bad thing either because good experience is also added. Why is it that we naturally resort to non social, Non 1 on 1, over the Internet interact action? Is it nature or nurture that that make us move more towards shortcuts through modern technology?

"Google is a veritable oracle of truth. The problem is recognizing truth, and distinguishing it from falsehood." -I agree, Google has a lot of very good information, but if you don't have any background knowledge on the topic you are researching on this search engine, it is likely that you will find bad information. I feel like the only information you don't have to distinguish or be skeptical of these days is in books. People have been focusing on putting information online so much, that there are hardly anyone putting information into books. Partly because anyone can put anything on the internet. Books are much harder to get out to the public. Information put into books to make sure if its reliable or not before allowing it to be published. "Well, I think many of us would actually trust an anonymous person more than we would trust our more eccentric acquaintances." -I think the fact of just having an idea of how reliable some of our acquaintances are really helps us decipher if we can really trust them. People always assume that most everyone is trustable and since you can't actually see or directly talk to this person one of this generation would assume that 'since it's on the internet, its true!" It's very sad, but true. And I hate to say, but I've been one of these people.

"My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." I agree with this whole heartedly. When one can simply Google the answer to a question, why does one need to learn it? With the answer to any question as at the tip of our fingers, knowledge seems less valuable than it did just 20 years ago. "Before the Internet, we were already awash in information." So true. The only difference between now and then is that now we have all the tip of our fingers. Back then you had to search for the answer, and finding it was worthwhile. Why do we get rid of original copies (books) when typically first editions are important? What happens to the world when everything is online? What if the systems crashed? At least with books, they don't just crash. They last many years.

"But without knowing who a person is, we are operating without a basic bit of information that we are used to having, in evaluating what people tell us face-to-face." A lot of information that we get when we talk to people face-to-face is lost when we talk to people over the internet. What are these social cues, anyway? How can we adapt them for the internet? People have adapted to expressing themselves in emails and chats by using emoticons to represent their facial expressions. But a lot of people misrepresent themselves on the web. Even with a little thing like emoticons-people overuse them-typing smiley faces left and right, even when they aren't smiling. On websites where the point is to display personal information-like Facebook-people filter it, to put just the good stuff. How ethical is this filtering? How important is it for us to know who are sources are, what they are like as people? How important is privacy on the internet? Can you be credible without revealing a lot about yourself? "First, we can make a role for experts in Internet communities." A lot of things on the internet-people and products included-can seem a lot cooler than they are in real life. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It gives everyone a level playing field for expressing their ideas and it gives everyone a level playing field for expressing their ideas. I think there is a reason we have experts. But when is it right to label someone as an expert? And how much more should we value the opinion of experts over those of others? Could making a place for experts allow people to think less critically about the information they are receiving? Would making a place for experts encourage other users to be more professional, to check their facts?

"But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you. So while information becomes nearly instantaneous and dead simple, knowledge is looking like a doddering old uncle." Making the mental work easier really isn't the point. The internet is only supposed to make information acquisition "nearly instantaneous and dead simple". We shouldn't expect something from the internet, or from anything, that it was never meant to supply in the first place. I am not quite sure what to make of the rest, because, frankly, who says "doddering"? I am going to assume that he is trying to say that knowledge now looks old, slow, boring, and sometimes embarrassing, depending on the uncle, compared to the mindless, blazing speed of information acquisition on the internet. However, I don't think that this is going to make a big change in the number of people who take the time to learn, and acquire knowledge, like the doddering old uncle. There will always be those who thrive on learning and discovering. There will also always be those who like taking shortcuts. Knowledge isn't going to be killed off by the internet. It will only benefit knowledge by making it easier for those who desire knowledge to gain it. "In short, we are reading reams of content written by amateurs, without the benefit of editors, which means we must as it were be our own editors. But many of us, I'm afraid, do not seem to be prepared for the job. In my own long experience interacting with Internet users, I find heaps of skepticism and little respect for what others write, regardless of whether it is edited or not." This I agree with. It is really easy to slander something, someone, or an idea on the internet with little, or no, respect or proof. The reverse is also true, though less affective, because it is always easier to destroy something than it is to build it. It is also incredibly easy to fru