The Internet has undoubtedly brought us some incredible access to information. Now, kids doing their school research project can easily pull up information on Wikipedia or some arbitrary site in place of heading to the library and tediously thumbing through Mr. Melvil Dewey's Decimals, coming up with a short list of possible references until narrowing it down to what is needed. Nowadays we just "Google it". In fact, "to google" has become a verb in an informal sense. So, what's the problem with this you might ask? Surely access to information is an improvement over less access. Surely having seemingly limitless resources, literally at your fingertips is a plus. And, I won't argue with that, in principle. What I take issue with is the depth and breadth of the information available and the reliability of its source.
Let's take History for example. I have a 45 year old history book (1963) left to me by my grandfather (the first edition is from 1924). When I pick up this book and open its somewhat worn leather cover and smell that wonderful old-book-smell, I am opening a book of knowledge... as opposed to merely a bounty of information. Knowledge as opposed to information is what we have lost in the decades of the Internet. We have millions of bits and pieces of history preserved in digital format on hard drives (backed up no doubt, many fold) over the world to avoid the catastrophe of losing it. But, the knowledge is diminished, the reliability of the information is reduced. Can we trust any given source on the Internet like we can a good book? The short answer is no, with some notable exceptions. Wikipedia may or may not be one of the them. That remains to be seen. In fact I do use Wikipedia regularly to begin research on a topic. But, to me it serves best as a starting point. A strong reliable reference needs to come from a traditionally published source (generally, not web published). However, Wikipedia has the double-edged sword that we are all historians. That is, we can have some faith that bias does not significantly enter into the equation, but then again, that is the task of the historian, as you will read.
So, I leave you with an excerpt from my grandfather's encyclopaedia about history. There is no "copy n' paste" here. I just typed it out manually, verbatim from the book. Maybe that's significant, maybe not... I encourage you to sit back and digest this wonderful piece of prose, slowly considering its implications regarding the preservation (or not) of contemporary history in the "information age".
Peace,
Grant
Excerpt from "The Lincoln Library of Essential Information" - The Frontier Press Company, 1963. Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 24-14708, 26th edition.
The word history is sometimes used to mean all that has happened in the past. In this sense we speak of the history of the earth, of rocks, or of plants, as well as the history of man. In the narrower sense, however, history is the account of the actions and fortunes of mankind. Such an account must be based upon reliable records which can be understood and interpreted by the writers of history. The records may be in the form of buildings, products of art, manufactured objects or writings. They may even be institutions, language or survivals of customs. But so long as they throw light upon man's activity in the past, such records at the material for the writing of history.
Unfortunately, it has been the exception for people to try to consciously hand down to their successors information about their own day. It often happens that certain records are preserved by the merest chance, while others, which would have been much more valuable, are lost. These conditions, it will be seen, make it a very difficult task to obtain a true picture of a past age, to recover the habits and customs of a society, to trace the effects of its actions upon later times, and to understand the motives and the feelings of people who ceased to live many years or even centuries ago. Yet these are the things that the writers of history aim to do. To accomplish their purpose, historians have worked out an elaborate science of evidence. The more successful historians have also brought to bear upon the task consummate gifts or art and of understanding.
The Use of History. To study history is to live over again the story of the past, to meet familiarly great men and notable women, and to see the outcome of their actions more clearly than the actors saw it themselves. It is to have at one's disposal authentic facts about the past. More than this, the reading of history enlarges our experience, and enables us to judge of present issues and to forecast the future of situations through our knowledge of similar situations in the past. For these reasons, history is a study of utmost importance for every one, and especially for citizens of a democracy, who have to make up their minds about issues of government, in order that they may help to determine public policies and actions.
The Task of the Historian. The first requisite for all sound historical writing is the careful establishment of facts. This object is attainable only if the historian has full knowledge of the sources of information in regard to the period to be described. Furthermore, he must possess the gift of critically estimating the value of his sources according to the rules of historical evidence. But, something more than mere chronicling of facts is expected of the historian. We look to him for interpretation of movements and of events.
To this task the historian must bring an insight into the motives which actuate men in various situations. He needs a power of discernment in state affairs and a due appreciation of the parts which economic, social, and religious interests play in human affairs. Moreover, the historian should keep himself free from considerations of self-interest, that his interpretation may be objective, reasonable, and as free from bias as is humanly possible. In style, he should be candid and unimpassioned, avoiding both panegyric and satire. To truth alone must he offer sacrifice. He must be fearless, incorruptible, untrammeled, conceding nothing either to or to friendship, a citizen of no city, recognizing no ruler, and setting forth the result of his researches in a diction which the many may understand and the more educated approve. Only by such a method can the integrity of a writer be established and his reputation as a historian be justified.
Let's take History for example. I have a 45 year old history book (1963) left to me by my grandfather (the first edition is from 1924). When I pick up this book and open its somewhat worn leather cover and smell that wonderful old-book-smell, I am opening a book of knowledge... as opposed to merely a bounty of information. Knowledge as opposed to information is what we have lost in the decades of the Internet. We have millions of bits and pieces of history preserved in digital format on hard drives (backed up no doubt, many fold) over the world to avoid the catastrophe of losing it. But, the knowledge is diminished, the reliability of the information is reduced. Can we trust any given source on the Internet like we can a good book? The short answer is no, with some notable exceptions. Wikipedia may or may not be one of the them. That remains to be seen. In fact I do use Wikipedia regularly to begin research on a topic. But, to me it serves best as a starting point. A strong reliable reference needs to come from a traditionally published source (generally, not web published). However, Wikipedia has the double-edged sword that we are all historians. That is, we can have some faith that bias does not significantly enter into the equation, but then again, that is the task of the historian, as you will read.
So, I leave you with an excerpt from my grandfather's encyclopaedia about history. There is no "copy n' paste" here. I just typed it out manually, verbatim from the book. Maybe that's significant, maybe not... I encourage you to sit back and digest this wonderful piece of prose, slowly considering its implications regarding the preservation (or not) of contemporary history in the "information age".
Peace,
Grant
Excerpt from "The Lincoln Library of Essential Information" - The Frontier Press Company, 1963. Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 24-14708, 26th edition.
The word history is sometimes used to mean all that has happened in the past. In this sense we speak of the history of the earth, of rocks, or of plants, as well as the history of man. In the narrower sense, however, history is the account of the actions and fortunes of mankind. Such an account must be based upon reliable records which can be understood and interpreted by the writers of history. The records may be in the form of buildings, products of art, manufactured objects or writings. They may even be institutions, language or survivals of customs. But so long as they throw light upon man's activity in the past, such records at the material for the writing of history.
Unfortunately, it has been the exception for people to try to consciously hand down to their successors information about their own day. It often happens that certain records are preserved by the merest chance, while others, which would have been much more valuable, are lost. These conditions, it will be seen, make it a very difficult task to obtain a true picture of a past age, to recover the habits and customs of a society, to trace the effects of its actions upon later times, and to understand the motives and the feelings of people who ceased to live many years or even centuries ago. Yet these are the things that the writers of history aim to do. To accomplish their purpose, historians have worked out an elaborate science of evidence. The more successful historians have also brought to bear upon the task consummate gifts or art and of understanding.
The Use of History. To study history is to live over again the story of the past, to meet familiarly great men and notable women, and to see the outcome of their actions more clearly than the actors saw it themselves. It is to have at one's disposal authentic facts about the past. More than this, the reading of history enlarges our experience, and enables us to judge of present issues and to forecast the future of situations through our knowledge of similar situations in the past. For these reasons, history is a study of utmost importance for every one, and especially for citizens of a democracy, who have to make up their minds about issues of government, in order that they may help to determine public policies and actions.
The Task of the Historian. The first requisite for all sound historical writing is the careful establishment of facts. This object is attainable only if the historian has full knowledge of the sources of information in regard to the period to be described. Furthermore, he must possess the gift of critically estimating the value of his sources according to the rules of historical evidence. But, something more than mere chronicling of facts is expected of the historian. We look to him for interpretation of movements and of events.
To this task the historian must bring an insight into the motives which actuate men in various situations. He needs a power of discernment in state affairs and a due appreciation of the parts which economic, social, and religious interests play in human affairs. Moreover, the historian should keep himself free from considerations of self-interest, that his interpretation may be objective, reasonable, and as free from bias as is humanly possible. In style, he should be candid and unimpassioned, avoiding both panegyric and satire. To truth alone must he offer sacrifice. He must be fearless, incorruptible, untrammeled, conceding nothing either to or to friendship, a citizen of no city, recognizing no ruler, and setting forth the result of his researches in a diction which the many may understand and the more educated approve. Only by such a method can the integrity of a writer be established and his reputation as a historian be justified.
Previous posts
Check out the KunstlerCast, below