I was in the kitchen/lunch area with two co-workers. No. Not you- someone else. Topic A (coffee origins or something) came up and one co-worker said to the other, “Just google it- you’ll find out everything you need to know about it.” I was surprised that this tech-savvy individual would recommend such a random shotgun method of research and I asked, “Do you still google stuff or do you just go straight to Wikipedia?”
“Humph.” They said, “Wikipedia’s not reliable- anybody can put stuff in there.”
Conversation kept going but let’s stop there.
Yes. Google is a verb (one may, in fact, google the cupboard for some ramen) and yes, Wikipedia is user-generated. Co-worker prob didn’t mean it this way, but the inference is that user-gen content is unreliable and anything Google returns on a query is credible.
Huh. That brings up some thoughts.
Don’t trust google search returns implicitly- just like you don’t trust strangers implicitly and take their random musings as gospel. You filter it and check it out critically. Wikipedia is user-gen, and not everything is quite accurate- i happen to know that Kevin Max Smith does NOT sound like the late Robert Goulet, so i have a good laugh and mentally filter it out.
I like Google quite a bit. I’ve been using their tools and they are awesome. I have google maps on my phone and have been rescued from unfamiliar suburbs more than once ( that means twice). I do not use Google search, though, if i can help it. Much prefer Dogpile and the returns i get there. In fact, Google and the other majors search engines seem to return as much crud as reliable stuff. But this isn’t even a search-engine throwdown. I prefer to not use engines at all if i can help it.
The best way to find stuff out there is thru online community. The blogs i read, the sites i track, the endless connections and links offered. People who have similiar interests and are more experienced than i can direct, guide and suggest in helpful ways that search engines cannot. Its important to actively and purposefully develop this community.
Web 2.0 is a realisation/acknowlegdement that user-gen content is the next evolution of the internet. This means that wikipedia.org wins over encylopedia.com, ebay.com wins over walmart.com and insider bloggers like Keith win vs. outsider bloggers like Krista . Krista’s a great writer, but she’s on the outside looking in- Keith is the inside guy. It gives him a credibility edge, as well.
Provided someone(s) is/are already knowledgable about what i am interested in, it works really well. On the other hand- perhaps i can help someone out. It goes both ways.
This makes church sites that act as e-bulletins less and church sites that act as bulletin boards more. Omniscient sites lose to interactive sites.
Did i say that right? For instance, if your church website tells me what times to show up at your building and provides a link to your audio sermon 3 days later- that’s fine. But if your church site gives me opportunity- a link and a stream- to mesologue about the sermon with others for a week or more afterward- then you’re on to something. It’s easy to tell people to “go home and study this on your own” so how about providing an enviroment to do that in? Or maybe, instead of the isolation tack, we could say “go home and study this more with others in the church.”
Give me links and further thoughts. Let me and my friends hash out the ramifications of what you’ve said- online because i live in a different city or cause i’m busy and can’t make it to the Sermon Discussion Small Group on Tuesday nights at 7. Because what one “preached” on a given sunday isn’t all one has to say and/or all there is to say on the matter- maybe some sermons begin to act as really long conversation starters.
That’s what happens when you say ignorant things in the lunchroom. People blog about interconnected tangents ’til they can’t think of anything else to say.