Social Networking As Info Source

I've been hearing a lot of debate about whether information developed through social networking sites (the latest is Wired.com's experiment in amateur-generated new that is edited for grammar only and vetted for factual correctness--it's called Assignment Zero)is valid and beneficial to society. The debate goes something like this: Proponent: "You can't trust the official media anyway, and they can't be everywhere, or be expert in everything. This is democracy at work, giving the average citizen throughout the world a voice he never had before. The public benefits from all the additional information uncontrolled by bottom lines and a slanted press." Detractor: "This is just another example of the dumbing down of news. Any bozo can slap something up on the web and declare it as valid. If you care about accuracy and truth then you know that this trend is a horrifying development in the history of news. It's like saying that truth and accuracy are less important than self-expression."

Well, we're arguing about this the wrong way. You have to step back and look at the web in its totality. The web is simply a new way of holding a mirror up to human society. It is, in fact, human society. It is not an information source, per se, or entertainment per se, or evil or good per se. It is just us. Think about this: some people believe that going to the local bar after work or standing around the jobsite or talking to Uncle Joe or listening to talk radio is the way to find out what's really going on in the world. These people don't trust officialdom, they don't trust experts or the so-called elite. A college education detracts from intelligence and common sense for these people. They may be wrong or right. Then there are those who look things up in the Encyclopedia or buy a book and read an expert's opinion or scan the New York Times. These people are skeptical of the wisdom of the common man. Maybe they're wrong and maybe they're right--It's all just a part of the human species' way of doing things. That's the web. People who are wary of drug companies and intellectuals will prefer information generated by the man on the street. People who want their facts from proven authorities using the "scientific method" will find those sources on the web--American Academy of Science, Grolier's, the Mayo Clinic, etc. It's just people. Both sides of the debate about social networking as a source of news and information are no more or less correct than they were before the Internet was invented. There's room on the 'net for both, for all types, including extremists, loonies, atheists, fundamentalists, libertarians, communists, and all the other -ists and -isms generated by the fecund human mind.

What's my point? It's this: none of this debate on social networking news is really about social networking sites, the Web, new technology, or anything else like that. It's just the latest iteration of the endless debate about the nature of the human sphere.