What Is Truth?
50 years ago, a picture was considered to be ‘truth’, but the same can’t be said today. With programs such as Photoshop becoming the norm rather than the exception in almost all forms of visual expression, every image must be, to some extent, question.
Is the same transition occurring with our online information? Many researchers argue that it is.
How many lies have you told on your Facebook and Twitter? While this may not seem significant, remember your discussion on privacy and authority from the previous Mission- the relationship goes both ways. As strongly as you desire to maintain your privacy from those in authority, authority figures desire to obfuscate their intentions and actions. One method of achieving this goal is by manipulating the truth.
Many students are told not to use Wikipedia as a source on research papers, with the argument being made that because the information on Wikipedia isn’t vetted by expert sources, it must be looked upon with questioning eyes. Some students are even being told that Internet sources in general aren't trustworthy because "anyone can make a website and say whatever they want".
Professional encyclopedias, research journals, and books, they present in contrast, are researched and fact-checked before printing, and are updated periodically as the world itself changes. For this reason, they are most often accepted as legitimate sources of information for research papers.
But as books become easier and easier to mass produce (see here and here and here), does this argument hold true? With the increased proliferation of Internet use, can we really write off Internet sources as untruthful?
What is truth?
How many lies have you told on your Facebook and Twitter? While this may not seem significant, remember your discussion on privacy and authority from the previous Mission- the relationship goes both ways. As strongly as you desire to maintain your privacy from those in authority, authority figures desire to obfuscate their intentions and actions. One method of achieving this goal is by manipulating the truth.
Many students are told not to use Wikipedia as a source on research papers, with the argument being made that because the information on Wikipedia isn’t vetted by expert sources, it must be looked upon with questioning eyes. Some students are even being told that Internet sources in general aren't trustworthy because "anyone can make a website and say whatever they want".
Professional encyclopedias, research journals, and books, they present in contrast, are researched and fact-checked before printing, and are updated periodically as the world itself changes. For this reason, they are most often accepted as legitimate sources of information for research papers.
But as books become easier and easier to mass produce (see here and here and here), does this argument hold true? With the increased proliferation of Internet use, can we really write off Internet sources as untruthful?
What is truth?
Complete the following individually:
How do you define, measure, and test truth? Answer in as much space as neccesary, but write at least one page. Read the Wikipedia article on the Encyclopedia Britannica. There is a distinct possibility that you have never used one. Read the Wikipedia article on the reliability of Wikipedia. Feel free to check the cited sources. Read this article and this article, a summary of an investigation into the veracity of Wikipedia versus that of Encyclopedia Britannica. Browse the comments section on the second page page. |
Use the arguments posited in the comments section, along with your own thoughts and opinions, to form two opposing ideas, one in support of Wikipedia as a source of information and one against. Should the shared nature of Wikipedia grant it more or less credibility than the Encyclopedia Britannica? Write one page.
Email your work to [email protected]
Email your work to [email protected]