Back on April Fools’ Day, the Urban Dictionary Word of the Day was wikiot, a portmanteau of wiki and idiot. It is defined as “a fool who believes all information found on Wikipedia is accurate and true,” and it’s usage example is:
Michael Scott, from NBC’s The Office, upon claiming “Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information,” solidified himself among the ranks of wikiots.
I was reminded of this new term by a recent comment from Barney Frank, where he said:
“The trouble with new media is the fact that there’s no screen. Anyone can publish anything. We still have the notion that if it’s printed it has some validity. Previously, you had to convince at least one other person that it was worth printing. Now, anyone can print anything in this medium. In general, there’s a lot more gossip and fragmentation. People are starting to just get reinforcement in the media. On the left, it’s MSNBC, Fire Dog Lake and The Huffington Post. On the right, it’s Fox News and the talk radio hosts. People interpret facts differently through these parallel universes. It’s what makes compromise so hard because your partisans just think you’re selling them out because that’s what everyone they know says. It deepens and sharpens a partisan and ideological divide.”
While you would be a fool to believe everything you read on the internet, you’d be a bigger fool to believe we were better off before the advent of personal publishing, when there were only a few gatekeepers publishing only what matched their own agendas. So while the character Michael Scott’s line is funny, it reveals several truths about the internet.
The internet is the best thing ever precisely because anyone in the world can write anything they want. Lacking a screen isn’t the trouble with new media, it is what makes it great. And because of the self-correcting nature of the internet, I believe you do end up with the best possible information. Of course, there is a greater onus on the reader to verify sources and help determine what is the best possible information, but before the interent, that ability rested in the hands of a privileged few. With all the competition today, you don’t have to convince one person that your message is worth printing, you have to convince all of you readers everyday.
So why is Mr. Frank so upset with today’s newfangled technology? It’s because he and his ilk used to be the gatekeepers, the screeners, the censors. They’ve lost control over information dissemination and they are losing control of their power as a result. Ideas that used to be suppressed have the opportunity to thrive on the internet, as evidenced by the events of the Arab Spring. Care to venture a guess what might happen in China when the history of Tiananmen Square can no longer be censored?
Mr. Frank worries that the new media “deepens and sharpens a partisan and ideological divide.” This is a valid point, but it’s a good thing. The truth has a magical ability to make you pick sides. The MSM is dying because new media has laid bare the media bias and given people greater access to the truth.
With insight like this, let’s just be thankful that Mr. Frank doesn’t have the type of control over the internet as is currently being exercised in Syria, and previously in Egypt and Libya.