"The kids are so computer literate that it would seem almost foreign to them to use a book."
This quote appeared yesterday on CNN's website, in an article about the demise of the printed encyclopedia.
Information has always changed on a moment-to-moment basis; only in recent decades has technology allowed us to become aware of those changes in something close to realtime.
Do we really need to have instant access to the latest, most minute details? Is that need sufficient enough to outweigh the risk of bad information being posted prior to adequate verification and validation? Is there a negative impact of any significance, in relying on a printed reference work for the first line of a new inquiry?
Everything moves so fast these days. I'd kind of like my data to slow down once in a while.
Posted by thinkum at March 13, 2004 04:31 AMWell, you know me. Give me books or give me death. Okay, not quite *that* extreme, but you get the gist. And I really have nothing more intelligent to say than that. Sorry.
Posted by: Sorlk Lewis at March 13, 2004 01:51 PMI remember when an encyclopedia -- if you wanted one at home instead of going to the library for it -- cost hundreds of dollars.
I remember being told by teachers to NOT use an encyclopedia for any kind of research other than the very beginning, because they were outdated the moment they got printed.
I remember when pictures of the stars, pictures taken on the moon, pictures of the mysteries of the depths could only be found in low-res newspapers or a few magazines. You'd have to wait for them, too, until the edition got published.
Last week, the world was able to see further into the past of the universe than anyone has been able to see before. Anyone could do it.
I do prefer the rapid spread of information, because it means the intellectual monopolies get reduced to nothing. Doesn't that count for something?
Paper has served us well for a good long time. It will serve us well in the future. Electrons are a valuable complement.
Posted by: PyeCat at March 13, 2004 06:31 PMAlso, yes to what Pye said. I love books, but for reference? Google all the way, man. Because if you can't find the information, you can at least discover where to find it... rather than, you know, digging through dusty books for a week. Which, don't get me wrong, can be a wonderful thing to do... but not when you have a term paper due that same week.
I guess I'd say it's rather situational, because (since I've actually read the blasted thing now) as the article says, younger kids don't know how to sort through the crap online. Which, in that case, Go Printed Encyclopedias! And at the same time, using actual books for information & research can sometimes be much better than instant access online. But... yeah. Basically, I'm just saying it's a balance between everything.
And I'm babbling now, so I'll go.
Posted by: Sorlk Lewis at March 13, 2004 07:53 PMOh, I don't disagree re: the value of instantaneous online dissemination of new data. What I'm objecting to is purely the complete abandonment of the printed page. It would be peachy if Google were taught as a complement to books...but that's not what I see happening.
Posted by: Thinky at March 14, 2004 11:01 PM