- Write a comment on the video post—click on the “comments” link below and add a comment like we did in class when we set up the blogs and you commented on the pictures.
- I am expecting that you will write a concise (about 100 words), organized, thoughtful comment, giving me some insight into what you think about the ideas in the video.
- There are no “right” or “wrong” answers here. I am interested in what you think.
- I will be evaluating you on how thoughtfully you are engaging with the ideas as well as how clearly you present them in writing.
Your comment will consist of a brief response to one of the following questions:
1. Colbert raises the idea that “truth” is just a matter of majority consensus—if enough people agree on something it must be true. He brings up the example of Galileo to point out that what “truth” is can change based on developments in areas of knowledge like science. What do you think about this idea? Is truth merely something “enough” people have agreed on? Why or why not?2. One of the points Colbert is trying to make is that it’s kind of scary that anyone could change “facts” based on dubious motives—a whim, a political agenda, etc. Was it “ethical” for Colbert to change the Wikipedia entry on elephants like that (assuming he actually did)? Is it ethical for people to “use” information sources for their own ends? Why or why not?
- I realize that some of these questions are bigger than I am giving you space to write about here. Feel free to write a bigger post on your own blog if you are feeling inspired.
- Each student is required to make one comment, using the guidelines above. I am hoping that you will also read each other’s comments and perhaps engage in an online discussion. Any additional comments will make me happy but will not affect your grade.
Have fun with this...
15 comments:
I do not think it was ethical for Colbert to change the Wikipedia entry on elephants. However, everyday people use the internet for their own personal advantage. I personally do not think it is ethical to purposefully mislead others. However, I also think that people who use the internet should be intelligent enough to know what is a creditable source and what is not a creditable source. So even though I find it unethical, I believe the easiest way to fix this problem is to learn to take the information found on the internet with a grain of salt.
I think users of wikipedia, knowing that people are able to change the content, should be aware that wikipedia should not be used as a creditable source. Yes, it may be a popular site, but popular sources and scholarly sources are quite different. I'm not very interested in this topic...if you are researching a topic, you should know which websites are valid and which are not.
I don't think it is either ethical or not, because wikipedia is very good about changes made to their pages. Wikipedia is only editable by people with a username/password, and monitors what people change. Not everyone can change the "facts", it is checked daily.
People using information sources for their own ends without citing is unethical. If you go online, find a book/encyclopedia/dictionary/magazine then cite that source or you are plagiarizing, which is unethical. Why? - Because you are stealing a piece of work that someone else wrote, not yourself. Citing is a form of academic honesty :).
I think that in order to use information from a source one has to know that it is a reliable source. Wikipedia is good for some information, however, for an English paper or formal assignment, I believe that Wikipedia would not always suffice.
Colbert made reference to Bush having nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, something along those lines, and I think that more Americans believe it now than before is because if one hears something enough times, they will take it as true even though it could be completely false. One should be careful with what information they find on the internet and from which sources.
I don't think that truth should be something that many people agree on but many times it is. Truth is something that we know is factual and is proven all the other things are a myth. I do believe that when people start to spread rumors like it was said about bush then more and more people will start to believe it without getting factual information, but who knows if bush does have any weapons of mass destruction. No one until we see it published or talked about on the news. we have no right to accuse him of it but we can believe it. I don't believe that Wikipedia should be used at all. Yes I have used it and it is faster than other resources that I have used in past, but it don't know if the information I’m researching is actually true. Wikipedia may sometimes be a good resource, but it is also a resource to those that do not have any other legit websites to go to. I don't think it was right for him to change the information on elephants because this source wants to be kept for resources and not demolished by those who start their fact wars on certain subjects. He did have every right to change it like anyone does, but it was not ethical.
I think that people can and should use wikipedia as a guide, but they need to be aware that these pages can be changed and all the information on the pages may not be valid. Like many others have already said, I think that this is a source that can be used, but it has to be backed up with other sources. This cannot be the only source one uses. Wikipedia can provide the ground work of research and then other information and other sources can form the foundation of the research. But I feel that Wikipedia can be a good place to get an overview of a topic, if you do not know where to begin, and then once there is the background information, research can be taken to the next level.
An attempt to use the example of Galileo to demonstrate that truth is subjective seems counterproductive. When I look at that case, I see a clear example that the majority consensus does not determine truth. A better measure of truth would be to see if a statement is backed by an experiment that is valid and reliable; that is to say it measures what it intends to measure and produces results that are repeatable. If not, the statement should be taken with a grain of salt.
It is indeed ethical for Colbert to change the Wikipedia entry on elephants, assuming he truly did so. He was making a larger and more important point that the information found on Wikipedia is to be taken at face value. It is not ethical to change information in general, but in this case, he was attempting to save people from false information by demonstrating how easy it is to create it.
In a sense, history is what most people agree on. For hundreds of years England and France have battled eachother for supremacy. Yet, in some English History textbooks, certain battles that were lost to the French were omitted, and visa versa. Even in American History books, the United States is most often shed in an attractive light. The unfortunate thing about history is that it is affected by opinion and self-interest. This is does not mean that all history textbooks are false. My point is that history is analysed through the eyes of the author. With each analysis comes bias, and often opinion. It is the job of the reader to be an informed reader and create their own opinions based on facts from multiple sources. Wikipedia is just a more modern version of this fact. Maybe Wikipedia can be a platform to compare histories from other countries to compare and contrast in order to find the complete truth.
I believe it was ethical that Colbert changed the elephant entry. He was doing it to prove a point that things found on the internet are not always true, and that anyone, including himself, could change it, as long as he was backed by other people. It seems that something can become 'truth' if the person who believes something has enough friends to back them up and make others believe it as well.
As far as Wikipedia goes, I believe it is a good tool to use if one is merely looking for a starting point to understand information on a certain topic. I personally do not use Wikipedia as a creditable source, but only because I have been told not to. Not only is truth what enough people believe, but what is creditable is the same way. Just because we are told that the people who write the history books, or the encyclopedias are correct, we believe these sources to hold nothing but truth. (I don't believe that there is a conspiracy going on or anything, though.) I don't believe that just because enough people agree on something, it must be true, but not only is that what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish, that is what encyclopedias are doing as well. What is written in those books is what the majority of this society believes.
Within the past few years, I have noticed less and less teachers and professors allowing students to use Wikipedia as a source for class work. As Colbert mentioned, much of Wikipedia’s information is false. This is because anyone has the power to change or add to the information given when a subject is researched, and if enough users of Wikipedia agree, then it magically becomes a fact. I do not think many Wikipedia users realize that a good amount of what they are taking in is either an exaggeration or a lie. Wikipedia should both stop allowing its users to alter the facts as well as correct any of the incorrect or fabricated information on the website. I also find it a little ironic that many times when doing research, Wikipedia is often the first link, out of a list of hundreds of results, on the topic being typed in a search engine. Does Wikipedia want to give its users bogus information?? It is unethical and morally unjust to give the public information they believe to be true, when in actuality is untruthful.
-Karly Callham
I feel that it was ethical for Colbert to change the Wikipedia entry on elephants in Africa. He was only trying to make a point to his viewers. Colbert simply wanted to show that sometimes what a person finds on the internet is not always accurate, but people also need to understand that normally Wikipedia does have a good amount of accurate information on its website. This is because not everyone is allowed to access and edit the information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is often a good place to begin research in order to gain new ideas ideas, which also makes it ethical for other people to use the information as a source for their own ends. People just need to be aware that sometimes data that is found on the internet is not always factual or true. It is important that as a researcher you use other sources as well.
To state that the truth is merely something a majority of people agree on is simply irrational. In a country that stresses the importance of the individual, it is truly disappointing to see an intellectual such as Stephen Colbert supporting this type of mentality. Colbert uses the example of Galileo to support his statements. However, this example does not support his claim, but rather provides an excellent point of discussion for those who oppose this view. When Galileo shocked the church with his claim that the sun, not the earth was at the center of the universe, he stood alone. In fact, many considered him crazy and he was eventually sentenced to house arrest. Galileo's life clearly proves the fact that truth is not merely majority consensus.
To say that Galileo's discovery "changed" the truth is yet another fallacy. It is important that we acknowledge the fact that the concept of truth remains "constant". Unlike theories and postulates, the truth is not simply what is believed to be correct, rather it is correct from the very beginning. The ability to explain and understand the world around us is a fundamental driving force of human nature that encourages us to seek the truth. When we look back at Galileo's discovery, we see that he did not change the truth, but rather disproved an accepted theory. By falling victim to the mentality that truth is simply majority consensus, we are ultimately promoting a society that encourages conformity and underestimates the power of critical thinking. After all, it is only through challenging the "truth" that we may advance as a society. As the saying goes, what is popular is not always right, but what is right is not always popular.
I think that in some ways the idea of "truth" is what a majority of people agree on. However, I do not believe that this is the only way that people determine truth. I also do not find it ethical to view truth in this way, just because people have come to a consensus. There needs to be proof to back up the truth of something like in scientific experiments or articles that prove what the history of our nation is.
I think that it is terrifying that people can change facts on Wikipedia, like Colbert did, if in fact he did. It is ridiculous that people choose to use sources as their way of demonstrating their points on issues. It really makes a person consider their sources they use as references of information.
I thought the point Colbert made about truth changing was interesting. The idea comes of truth comes in many forms and Colbert touched on something that many of us fall trap to. Some people derive their idea of truth from a moral or religious standpoint, others from personal viewpoints, and others from group consensus.
Colbert pointed our that truth founded on group consensus is often faulty because people are uniformed... and random ;)
On a personal note, I think Wikipedia is wonderful, but must be used wisely. Writting a paper based on the opinion of someone sitting in their basement playing with Wikipedia is a poor idea!
First of all, Colbert's point in changing the entry on Wikipedia was that it's totally unethical. His changing it was to point out what's wrong with the Wikipedia system, so I believe that his drawing attention to matter at hand was totally ethical. He proved his point quite well.
Second of all, yes "truth" is a matter of majority opinion in our culture. No, it's not right, but that's the way it is. Unfortunately, I feel that people take word of mouth extremely seriously. Even if the "truth" is not the real truth it becomes truth based on popular opinion. We see this all the time in our own media's portrayal of events. Things is Iraq aren't always going the way that the media portrays them, but because that is what we are told it becomes truth to most Americans. It's not something that I agree with, but it is a reality.
Post a Comment