I agree with the ideas that Gleick states. In a world that seeks to allow open access to most information, it is a understandable notion that by uploading images of all, if not most, text onto the internet the information would be drastically more widely available, and the information would be preserved more efficiently. (Even the best kept books will crumble.)
That aside and even though Gleick did produce several positive examples, the article itself may be a little biased in that he only quotes one person. I am sure the availability of text on the internet is upsetting to others besides the one English writer.
As we have read "The History of Reading" it is understandable that for thousands of years humans have built a type of kinship with the vellum, sheep skin, paper, or even cave walls that we have written on, but just as those people that came before us, the electronic uploading of those documents will just be another footnote in our history books. This is simply our renaissance of books.
One of the biggest things to consider is who is going to foot the bill, and however does will have control of the information. Also, assumingly the information does become widely uploaded, who will monitor if the information is changed?
I remember a long time ago that my Uncle said that he would never use an online bible. At the time I didn't understand, but as I grew up he meant because information controlled by someone else is always subjective to the controller, and I could see that becoming a possible problem in the future. But to refute advancement for the "grain of paper and the scent of glue," I don't agree.
I understand the theory behind someone else controlling the information on line but that also happens in books and print. All the information we receive today is filtered through someone else s eyes, ears, perceptions, education and biases. The information is then again filtered through some editor, and then filtered again through our own set of inner filters. I don't think the fear of misinformation should dissuade us from online research.
ReplyDeleteThere is misleading information in print both from periodicals and books but I do not think that should cause is to not read. We just have to be more diligent in our research and careful in what we accept.
I think people's reluctance to change is the main thing holding digital information back. People aren't used to reading a book without any pages made of paper, so they don't want to use it.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some sort of line when it comes to digital information. For example, my parents use the computer to get driving directions and email but that's pretty much it and anytime I try to teach them to do other things they refuse. They act as if they learn to do anything else their internet experience will never be the same, which I guess I understand because it's a lot harder to stay on task when you know of dozens of other things you could be doing. At the same time though, as long as there's moderation and balance I don't think advances in technology are so bad.
ReplyDelete