The problem of "infomania" involves more than just a willingness or lack thereof to embrace online information and digital technologies. As writers or reporters, readers and critical thinkers, we must do more than just absorb information; we must question and confirm the veracity and the absoluteness of the data we receive. Is the majority of user-generated content just a regurgitation of what is seen in print? When does it become new information and at what cost? I know the Wikipedia point has been argued to death, but it begs continual consideration—how much of this information is new and necessary and which is redundant? Is the information genuine or an incorrect summation/amalgamation of sources that predate it?
stardancer101 says...
I grew up with this kind of world, so perhaps I know how to tune it all out. It's not information that bothers me; in fact, I love having the world at my fingertips if I need to dip into it. My bigger problem is being tempted to go online and learn all kinds of new things, or just procrastinate instead of writing. But the Internet is great for getting to know something about human beings. For me it's just another way to observe people. Online may not be real, but it is a reality, and I say embrace it...while remembering to live a real life too.
Reader Comments
Add Comment | View All Comments (5)