On the one hand, there’s Wikipedia, which is a good thing. On the other hand, the project that TV started of making everybody on Earth the exact same kind of stupid seems a lot closer to completion now than it did a decade ago…
The internet itself is neutral and leans more towards good than bad. The internet as people use it, tends to be bad and for selfish reasons. Also, considering the interactive nature of the internet that allows more people to do bad things with it.
From my perspective, I’d have to say overall it’s good. I’ve got friends and family I’d never have if not for the net. I’ve read books and watched movies/tv shows I would never have tried if not for the net. There’s so much I learned that would never have thought I’d be interested in thanks to the net.
The internet has saved me lots of money in trips to the store, getting forms, and finding information. I have questions all the time. Some are answered here. Others take Google search. Answers are always available somewhere. Finding the correct answer sometimes requires a consensus of several sites. The internet has become my phone book. I can tell a store’s hours and content. It goes on and on.
When it’s good it’s very, very good; when it’s bad it’s awful.
How exactly is the internet doing this? People are vastly better informed about all manner of things via the internet than at any point in the entirety of human history.
The internet has a lot to answer for, but “making everybody on Earth the exact same kind of stupid” is not a charge I have ever seen laid before it’s door.
With apologies to Heidegger - the internet is a mirror: when a monkey looks in, no sage looks out.
Because of the way that most services are personalized, the internet (in addition to kindling Promethean fire) effectively reinforces the 57 different existing varieties of stupid.
I would venture to say that humanity is less of a mystery than it was before the internet. Anonymity allows people to say what they really feel with little or no repercussions, and it also allows a larger audience to read those opinions - from all over the world.
Pre-internet you would have had a hard time convincing me that there were many people in the world who enjoyed dressing up like a fox and acting out in their secret persona. But, thanks to the internet, it’s an indisputable fact. And like-minded individuals can easily find eachother and get together for activities/support/exchange of ideas. Before the internet that would have been very difficult and most people would have lived and died with their desires a hidden secret.
I knew people liked porn, but before the internet I had no idea just how much they really like it. People really really like it, it seems.
What’s bad about unlimited knowledge? This is what I used to dream of in my sci-fi dreams.
Wikipedia is bad. Anybody can post what they THINK is true…unverified opinions. Beyond that, being online is like being accidently locked in at the library over the weekend…the possibilities are endless!
I think I’ll go look up dress at the turn of the century. The 20th century. Meaning the late 1800s. I’ve always loved Worth’s.
I don’t think it’s bad, they do try to self police themselves. It can be a good place to start, just check their cites/links to be sure.
Locked in a library with a huge fucking collection of, well fucking. 
Oh and kitties, lots and lots of kitties running through that library.
It’s not good or bad; it’s a tool, like a flamethrower or a harpoon.
Spoken like a true Zen Master.
I have a tough time calling an inanimate object or entity “good” or “bad”; it can have good or bad effects, or uses or qualities, but in and of itself, I’d say it’s neutral.
That said, I believe the internet has had an overall positive effect on my life, making both products and information easier to find and exposing me to ideas (in the forms of books, movies or even just online discussions) I wouldn’t have otherwise encountered (and just being darned entertaining.)
For humanity at large, it’s a tougher call. For all the sharing of ideas and enabling of good effects, it also enables a horrific number of vices. I’d still say out has had a net positive influence, but it’s less clear-cut.
While it can be bad or neutral, I think it leans much more toward the positive than netural or negative
Definitely.
There’s some of that in there. But two things: first, most subjects aren’t particularly controversial, and you can reliably get good facts from Wikipedia on such subjects.
Not good enough for work you’re planning to publish, but good enough for message boards, blogs, and other everyday uses. But that was true for the Encyclopedia Britannica back in the bad old days, and you could only access it when the library was open, unless you shelled out more than a thousand bucks (in today’s dollars) for a set of your own.
Second, even with respect to controversial subjects, the facts are generally reliable, subject to the same caveats. If you’re reading an article about the “Brooks Brothers Riot” during the Florida recount after the 2000 election, you’d expect the tone of the piece to depend on who last edited it. For instance, that participant Roger Stone’s self-description as a “GOP Hitman” is included suggests that the last person to edit it leans left. But there’s no reason to doubt Stone’s participation, or that he worked for the Committee to Re-Elect the President in the 1972 election.
And you can get those facts for free, in seconds, because Wikipedia is there. I’m missing the major flaws that make up for this sort of day-to-day factual reliability, even on matters of considerable controversy.
Well there’s lots of opportunities to study anatomy for free. Is that a bad thing?
The thread title reminded me of a scene in the hilarious Peep Show, where Jez and SuperHans are talking to a potential manager for their band:
Cally: So, I checked out your stuff on MySpace and I literally freaked, big time.
Jeremy Usborne: [to Super Hans] Yeah, see? I was so right to get us on the internet. The internet’s gonna be massive, I keep telling you.
Super Hans: [dismissively] Yeah, we’ll see.