This ignorant blather about green blogs echoes many, many similar critiques from crusty old farts who fear the democratization of media. Without the "gatekeepers" of the traditional media, they cry, why, just anything can be published! By anyone! Even someone of ... low upbringing!
Indeed, Mr. Ladle fears that unless the onrush of rabble is tamed and domesticated, "we run the risk of creating a generation of eco-illiterate consumers and voters at a crucial time for the Earth's diminishing resources."
Yes, we wouldn't want to risk that. Why damage all the fine work the established media has done educating consumers and voters about environmental matters?
Like most crusty old farts, Ladle completely misunderstands the blog world. He talks about blogs as though they were simply an alternative publishing platform (with no gatekeepers). But the reason blogs have had such huge impact in such a short time is precisely because they circumvent gatekeepers. They allow direct, unmediated connections. They enable people to converse and inspire and organize. They are the tool of an informed, active citizenry, not just passive news consumers. They break the monopoly the established media has on determining what's newsworthy, what's significant, what's inside the boundaries of acceptable debate.
Sure there's lots of crap out there on blogs. But after the colossal screwups and abdication of responsibility by the media in the last decade or so, I think opening up the game to non-"professionals" should be the least of our worries. I've learned more about environmental issues from blogs in the last few years than I ever have from established media.
Wikipedia, IMDb, the blogosphere ... the people are sharing knowledge and ideas with each other directly, without middle-men. It scares the crap out of the gatekeepers and those the gatekeepers kept comfortable.
(To see a related, even more self-parodic and out-of-touch blog critique, read Lee Siegel's already-famous column on "blogofascism" (yes, really). There are a number of delectable take-downs of Siegel floating around, but my two favorites are Josh Marshall's and Billmon's. OK, and Matt Yglesias'.)
Comments
View as Flat
farnishk Posted 11:51 pm
27 Jun 2006
And as for the call for the following:
"Check the data - strong scientific arguments are based on information from recognised sources that is available for public scrutiny, while weak or spurious arguments are often backed up with data from secondary sources or often no data at all.
Take note of the language - arguments couched in hyperbolic language may be masking a lack of understanding or sound information "
well, that's just good practice. Anyone who tries to influence someone else based on hyperbole alone should expect to be shot down in flames. There is nothing wrong with opinion, but it must be stated as opinion, not as fact.
As a new blogger who is already fed up with the quantity of blind repostings around regardless of content or understanding (happily, Grist is not guilty of this), I did not feel in the slightest
bit offended by the article.
Keith
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:50 am
28 Jun 2006
Then other bloggers jump on their conslusions. with all kinds of criticism from scientific sources even.
For instance: when many of us said, Katrina is a result of global climate change, more extreme weather variations. More severe storms. In this case due to hihger average water temperatures, the heat engine that drives the hurricane.
That seemed plausible. We were soundly denounced by other bloggers with lots of scientific support, printed in the corporate media.
Now a year later, scientific reports are coming around to our conslusion.
I just wonder if the radical prediction that fuel farming, nuclear, and fossil power will be abandoned in favor of renewable electric powered transportation (at a relative cost of 75 cents per electric "gallon"), will have a similiar fate.
Come on Subaru, make it so. Warp 7.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
farnishk Posted 5:32 am
28 Jun 2006
He wrote a great deal. Just as H.G.Wells wrote a great deal of science fiction, some of which would be amazingly prescient were the vast majority of his huge output not complete nonsense, from a scientific point of view.
Just because something someone says comes true it does not mean that the next thing they say will also come true; it takes a good scientist for that.
Keith
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.com
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:35 am
28 Jun 2006
Perhaps his warnings and fears, over the easy transmission of what purports to be fact but is really falsehood, served up through recklessness, or extreme emotion, or a devious agenda, come across as shrill. And I certainly think it is a bit odd that he should point to the danger of "eco-illiterate" voters. Certainly readers of green blogs know at least as much, and care at least as much, as those who only read newspapers and watch TV news.
But in insisting on the importance of "gatekeepers," he is representing the attitude not so much of class (against the implications of David's words "democratization" and "low-upbringing"), or of age ("crusty old fart"), or of the "traditional media" (though Dr. Ladle does indeed seem to find the fact-checking practices of mainstream journalism praiseworthy), as of science.
In my experience, professional scientists are frequently like this. Not only are they fiercely critical of the work of their colleagues, but they are loath even to listen to the ideas of people without an adequate professional background. Remember Dr. Grant, the paleontologist in "Jurassic Park," turning in disgust from little Timmy, who is cheerfully describing the contents of Robert Bakker's book? That is fiction, of course (and, horrors!, Michael Crichton's fiction), but still a decent image of what I mean.
And then, for no reason that I can quite understand, there is allegedly a certain disdain among scientists for those of their number who are viewed to be "popularizers." It is understandable that Watson and Crick's "Double Helix" should have been criticized by people who understood what really lay behind the discovery of the structure of DNA. Surely Richard Feynman never had to endure professional disdain, nor apparently does Stephen Hawking. But Carl Sagan did, and even to some extent Stephen Jay Gould. And it is referred to in the Yale document that David posted, in the section on whether and how scientists are to talk to the lay public.
This strikes me as mightily ironic. One of the glories of science is in fact that it is truly democratic: unlike what is found in many religious traditions, in which "knowledge of reality" is controlled by an exclusive elite of hierarchs and visionaries, the data of science and the theories that systematize them are in principle available to everyone with senses and a mind. And yet, so often, scientists come across as every bit as elitist and hierarchical as those prophets and priests. And if you count MDs as a species of scientist, they can be positively inhumane.
That is a pity. It is reasonable for scientists to be impatient with opinionated laypeople who -- apparently -- do not know what they are talking about. As the scientists and Malcolm tell Hammond in "JP's" crucial banquet table scene, "You didn't have to work for this." Still, I think some patience and forbearance are in order. Hammond and his vision deserve a little sympathy -- and receive it from Spielberg, though not from Crichton. I would hope that scientists remember that science is for everybody, and that they try to think well of our basically well-intentioned curiosity, even while enduring our unpleasant squawks.
On IMDb: I love that site, but for the movie info, not for the reviews and discussions, which are so irregular in quality as to be useless. I tend to trust positive reviews more than negative ones -- and apparently the makers of the EV movie would agree!
On hurricanes: There is a recent AP report that I saw in CNN.com yesterday, saying that 19 scientists who had either seen "Inconvenient Truth" or read the book were very impressed with how Al Gore really got the science right. There were a couple of quibbles, though. Gore says that the Antarctic ice sheet has been proved to show the effects of global warming, when he meant the Greenland ice sheet (though, to be fair, there is a lot of major new melting going on in Antarctica). And somebody said it would have been better if he had not made so much of Katrina and the last hurricane season, because there are plenty of other examples of the effects of global warming which are much less "controversial" -- and that from someone who is not a "denier."
I got your Jean-Luc Picard reference, Amazing. Very cute.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:53 am
28 Jun 2006
The research scientists I met on the frontier were very friendly and accommodating. I remember, 23 years ago, sitting at a table with advance theoretical physics guys all fast talking particles in a language I did not understand. One of them had a name tag with Fermi on it. We were at an advanced solar research conference, so after 20 minutes I interrupted and asked why they were here learning about terrestrial solar energy. They said that particle physics will not save humanity from the consequences of fossil fuels and that, as scientists, they felt responsible with coming up with answers to this global problem. Solar was the only energy source large enough.
When I visit research institutes the research scientists are always available, unless wearing goggles in the middle of experiments. They would open their office doors and allow me to sit down and talk at length about their research, sharing notes, and even grouping with others for more in depth spontaneous discussions on black boards.
If we survive global warming it will be because the scientists were the first to jump into the fire.
They are a bit awkward with media, like that engineer played by Jack Lemmon in China Syndrome.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:25 am
28 Jun 2006
The movie info on IMDb is submitted by users, just like the information on Wikipedia. IMDb doesn't advertise it as much -- they are, in my view unwisely, concerned about the impact it might have on the site's credibility.
But the site is credible, and universally seen as such in the industry. It is proof that the "hive mind" -- thousands or millions of people sharing what they know and fact-checking each other -- can produce more and better information than a small group of "experts."
Wikipedia -- which is still in its infancy -- is proving the same thing. Blogs, in their own way, are proving the same thing (though more filtering and reputation-management mechanisms are needed).
Ladle is one of many people who are frightened by this, who think that only credentialed experts can serve as adequate gatekeepers for the information that reaches the public. But like it or not, that's changing. The people are educating each other.
www.grist.org
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:31 pm
28 Jun 2006
Dear David,
A lot of my friends love Wikipedia. I don't. I only use it for the simplest pieces of information that are unlikely to be manipulated.
There is a problem with anonymous posts (including this one!). The central assumption is that large numbers of people with good will and honest intentions will manage to outweigh anyone person or groups who seek to manipulate information for their own purposes.
It is an assumption that has never been tested.
Nor can it be.
There are some problems. First, you write (and most supporters believe) that there are "thousand or millions of people sharing what they know and fact-checking each other". Do we actually know this to be true? There may be thousands overall, but for any one piece of information, how many people actually participate in the writing (I am referring here to Wikipedia), and do we know that they actually "fact check"?
The danger is that those who wish to distort information, and who have agendas will be able to pursue them without exposure. Large companies and organizations may very well pay people to "blog" and post as if they were disinterested observors, when in fact they are not.
This already happened in 2004 in the South Dakota Senate race. Some people feel that the outcome of the race was changed by the "objective" bloggers, who were in fact paid partisans, hiding behind blogging to attack Sen. Daschle. Democracy is not well served by such practices.
It is true that one of the problems of American society is that most people have "tuned out" and turned decisions over to experts (who are not always objective themselves).
However, we should beware of the "hive mind" or conventional wisdom. A Wikipedia entry from the time of Gallileo would insist that the Earth was the center of the universe, and any attempts to challenge this would have quickly been erased.
When I read an opinion, I can match it against the information possess, and apply logic to it, question it, and see if it rings true. But when I read something factual that is not in my area of expertise, I possess no such ability.
I rely on generally recognized sources, and also on knowing something about the biases of those sources (we all have biases). If I see an article by a form Bush cabinet member (or Clinton), I use the knowledge of who they are to help me determine what I believe about what they say.
The danger of using anonymous sources for facts (as opposed to discussion and exchanging ideas) is that we lack that ability.
All of us have watched the MSM be manipulated by the government (which loves anonymous sources) into endorsing the War on Iraq (as one example).
Anonymous sources were used to attack and discredit Joseph Wilson.
Do we really think that the CIA (which admits planting articles in foreign journals) would not use the internet for its disinformation campaigns? How about other governments? Or corporations?
I am not advocating that people never believe anything they see posted, but only that people not automatically trust information that lacks sourcing and is anonymous.
During the SARS epidemic, the internet was abuzz with stories about how the government was going to blockade Beijing and the stores were going to run out of food. I got emails and calls from as far away as Hong Kong and the US telling me to rush out and buy food. It even made at least one radio station, and zillions (meaning I don't know how many) SMS messages.
In fact, many people flooded the stores and emptied their shelves. I didn't go, spent my time trying to find people to bet with me as to whether the stores would be empty the next day. They weren't. The hive mind was wrong.
To the extent that this is all making people think, and exposing us all to new ideas and information, it is good.
Here are some links to the discussion about Wikipedia in particular.
http://www.zephoria.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi?__mode=view&entry_id=4467
For people who have never read it, consider looking at Phillip Knightley's "Truth, the First Casualty"
http://www.jamesphogan.com/heretics/firstcasualty/
While it is about governments manipulation of the media during wartime, it well behooves us to consider the extent to which such manipulation of not only the media, but the internet, goes on as a matter of course.
Read, think, post, but keep a large grain of salt nearby at all times.
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:55 pm
28 Jun 2006
Patrick, you are absolutely right about the need to be mistrustful of anonymous contributions to anything online. I would add, even names are not to be trusted.
And I too find Wikipedia rather creepy. The few times (not more than a dozen, I think) I have looked at articles on Wikipedia, always through links to them, never because I started out with Wikipedia as an immediate destination, they were full enough, content-wise, and up to date, and written in a tolerable, bland, reference-book style. All those times, the text that I was reading seemed perfectly trustworthy. Nevertheless, it was highly unpleasant, not having any name of an intelligent humanoid being to associate with the text before my eyes.
Once I followed a link to the "Desperate Housewives" article (don't you dare ask how or why). What a monument of historiography! It goes on and on and on! Still, the utter formality and anonymity were chilling; I felt the writer/s was/were writing in a kind of cell, with the knowledge that the Censor was peeking down at him/her/them from an all-seeing device in the ceiling fixture, and the Men With the Sticks and Cuffs were waiting outside.
Do you remember what the narrator of George Orwell's "1984" said about the watered-down, tasteless, unsatisfying ales of the new totalitarian regime, served in portions either too stingy or too much? That is what it is like, reading a Wikipedia article.
Not long ago, drawn by some story I read about Wikipedia, I was interested enough to try to write something.
I had no particular agenda, save to find out what the experience was like, and had no idea what to write. Probably, I would have tried to add to the article "hadrosaur" something flakey but sincere, like this:
"In the world of dinosaur [link] art [link], hadrosaurs are not often portrayed as the elegant and beautiful creatures [link] that they were. More often than not, they are portrayed as merely fodder [link] for the assumedly more exciting tyrannosaurs [link]. In fact, it is clear that they were very successful [link] animals [link], and exhibited the grace [link] of the modern [link] camelids [link], including not only the Old World [link] dromedaries [link] and Bactrians [link], but also the New World [link] llamas [link] and guanacos [link]. Some observers with an appreciation of the beauty [link] of hadrosaurs consider the most beautiful the Corythosaurus [link],or the Parasaurolophus [link], or the Lambeosaurus [link]. Others, especially those with a fond affection [link] for the dinosaur halls of the American Museum of Natural History [link] in New York City [link], USA [link], believe that the two [link] mounted [link] fossil [link] specimens of Anatotitan [link], formerly known as Trachodon [link], are among the most magnificent animals that ever lived [link] on this planet [link]."
So I went through all the rigmarole, and followed the tutorial, and practiced all the practice-writing stuff. But still, when I went to try to enter, I was repeatedly shut out, with the false accusation that I had committed some violation in the past. I had no idea what I had done wrong; I had no idea how I could possibly have done anything wrong; there was no one to appeal to, no one to find out any useful information. It would be going far too far to say my state was rather like being sent to an online Guantanamo; but you know what I mean.
So at this point I would not touch Wikipedia with a twelve-foot Chechen.
Anyway, I hope David is not very serious about the "hive mind," and the suggestion of "thousands or millions." From what I have read -- and the Wikipedia guy has put out -- , there is in fact a relatively small number of contributors to Wikipedia.
And as glad as I am to learn from David that IMDb also relies on "users" to give basic movie info, I assume the sources that they refer to (on dates of release of movies, on casts and crew, on filmographies of artists) are pretty easily verifiable. In fact, it would be surprising if the relevant interested parties would not make such information available. So I am not impressed by the suggestion that hundreds of thousands of independent investigators from all over the world are hard at work making IMDb better and better.
In fact, it seems the examples of Wikipedia and IMDb are quite off the track. They both seem to have their all-powerful "gatekeepers," whatever you want to call them. They are not at all representative of the blogosphere that Dr. Ladle was referring to.
Patrick, you obviously have in mind a different kind of members-welcome website, a different kind of readership, and a different kind of sense of do-what-you-want-with-what-you-see. And so do I. I am sorry to read your story about Tom Daschle; I hope it will not be true that all American politicians will henceforth need to plan such tactics.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:26 am
29 Jun 2006
Dear Caniscandida,
Thanks for your great post! It is very interesting to hear from someone who has actually tried to post something on Wikipedia.
Some folks I used to work with were big fans of Wikipedia. When I suggested that being anonymous was a good way to cover up biases, they replied that they were totally objective and lacking in biases.
Ahem. That pretty much ended all discussion, since they had plenty of biases in my mind (and I do too! we all do.).
Your comments are helpful and provide a much needed perspective.
The internet is a wonderful thing for the few of us who use it. But it is not reality, nor all inclusive, and we should always remember that!
patrick
Permalink