Just Google It…

James Andrew Burris

History of The Book: 4235

Dr. Alan Rauch

May 6th, 2015

Burris 1

James A. Burris

Dr. Alan Rauch

History of The Book 4235

May 6th, 2015

Just Google It…

We live in an unimaginably connected world. A person’s first read of the day

was typically a newspaper delivered to their doorstep, but in todays world, we turn

to our computers, phones, and other personal gadgets to get our first information

fix. Always connected: always in reach. No longer do we have to work so hard to find

the information we desire, to reach a loved one, or to be productive. The constant

flow of information seems wonderful; but is it? What kind of proverbial “strings”

could be attached to such advancement in technology? I believe that, as is typical

with most aspects of life, technology must be used carefully and in moderation,

while being approached by an educated mind. We must determine what is valid and

what is not; what we should believe, and what we should be cautious of. To begin, I

will discuss whether or not the search for knowledge is easier or more difficult

today compared to life before the Internet. Additionally, I will touch on Wiki

sources, as well as the best ways to discover whether or not you have found a

quality source. Finally, I will cover the importance of finding the best sources, as

well as situations where the prior might not be that important after all.

We do, indeed live in a time of instant gratification. You can instantly check

your bank account balance, find directions to the local gyms, download your favorite

Burris 2

songs, and of course we have instant grits and mashed potatoes! In general we have

instant access to nearly any source of information you could think of. So it seems

like the obvious answer to whether or not the search for knowledge is easier or

more difficult today would be a resounding YES, right? Well mostly, but not exactly.

You might be thinking, “You just said, “No longer do we have to work so hard to find

the information we desire…” So doesn’t that statement answer this question?”

Ultimately, it depends on how you define information versus knowledge. A key

factor, which I will touch on later, is the validity of the sources of information, but

first, I will discuss how that new information is obtained and retained by your brain.

There is information everywhere. A quick search on any smartphone can give you

an answer or method to solving a problem. It provides you information the moment

you need it, as long as you have a connection to the World Wide Web. I myself have

used this for situations where I needed to quickly troubleshoot my furnace, find the

most effective ways to naturally remove carpenter bees from my deck, and so on;

however the odds that I retain all this information in the future is drastically lower

than it used to be. Retention is the knowledge. This always interested me: why was

it that we have so much free access to information, but when I ask, or am asked, a

question pertaining to this information at a later time, it is a struggle to recall

accurately without looking this information up again to verify? Attempting to

answer this question led me to find a resolution in the psychology of our brains and

how they process and store information. One possible answer can be related to why

we create schemata, and stereotypes, to classify the people and things around us.

Burris 3

Schemata and stereotypes are quick visual indicators that allow us to lessen our

mental efforts.

When we meet someone for the first time, we notice a number of

things about a person – clothes, gestures, manner of speaking, body

build, and facial features. We then draw on these cues to fit the person

into a category…For example, if a woman is wearing a white coat and

has a stethoscope around her neck, you could reasonably categorize

her as a doctor.

(Morris, 2014, pg. 458)

These shortcuts used by our brains to make sense of information lead to what

psychologists call a primacy effect, which help make our thought processes easier by

using prior information.

Over time, as we continue to interact with people, we add new

Information about them to our mental files. Our later experiences,

however, generally do not influence us nearly as much as our earliest

impressions. This phenomenon is called the primacy effect. Schemata

and the primacy effect reflect a desire to lessen our mental effort.

Humans have been called “cognitive misers”. Instead of exerting

ourselves to interpret every detail that we learn…we are stingy with

our mental efforts.

(Morris, 2014, pg. 458)

So how does this relate to the “information” that the Internet provides to us? Since

we know our brain simplifies the way we view the world in order to lessen cognitive

Burris 4

effort, we can also confirm that our brain finds other ways to take shortcuts. The

Internet provides a constant connection to information, and because of this, our

brains spend less time learning and remembering the information that we find.

Carolyn Gregoire of The Huffington Post elaborates on this in her article entitled

“How Technology Is Warping Your Memory:”

Research has found that when we know a digital device or tool will

remember a piece of information for us, we're less likely to remember

it ourselves. A recent Scientific American article likened the Internet

to the brain's "external hard drive," explaining that the social aspect of

remembering has been replaced by new digital tools.

(Gregoire, 2013)

The digital age has provided us with a plethora of information, constantly at our

fingertips, but we pass the responsibility of retention back to the readily available

information source itself: the Internet and our gadgets. To transform information

into knowledge, we must store that information into our long-term memory.

Besides what could be called cognitive laziness by our brains, what other reasons

could there be for the information on the Internet to remain unlearned? I touched

earlier on schemata, being a mental representation of information used for memory,

but there are two other methods that we typically use to store information into our

long term memory; rote rehearsal and elaborative rehearsal. Rote rehearsal is your

standard repetitive memorization technique. You use it for short bits of information

that you repeat in your short-term memory, with the intent that over time it will be

stored in your long-term memory. The later, elaborative rehearsal is largely the

Burris 5

favored method of memorization because of its effectiveness. In Charles Morris’s

Understanding Psychology, he describes how elaborative rehearsal functions to

create lasting memories:

Through elaborative rehearsal, you extract the meaning of the new

information and then link it to as much of the material already in long-

term memory as possible. We tend to remember meaningful material

better than arbitrary facts; and the more links or associations of

meaning you can make, the more likely you are to remember the new

information later.

(Morris , 2014, pg. 193)

So essentially, if new information is associated with old information and

experiences, the chances of the information being remembered is greater.

Additionally, information is easier to remember when creating a larger “memory” of

the event. Think of the old saying, “It is about the journey, not the destination.” In

many ways, there was growth in knowledge and experience (and retention)

involved in the journey while doing research. The Internet has significantly

shortened the “journey”, making the information you seek available without the

effort. In his article, “On Research: How did it ever get done before the Internet,” E.

John Love comments on the effort it took in the library to find what he was looking

for:

Back in high school, I remember that we were taught how to use the

card catalogue to look up books by their call numbers. It seemed to

take a long time and a lot of searching to find one or two 20 year-old

Burris 6

books, and then, more searching in each volume to find the

information you were looking for in the first place…The difference in

time and effort spent on research today is like the difference between

walking somewhere and teleporting there.

(Love, 2011)

This displays a benefit of the way we find information now: it certainly saves time.

With that in mind, teleporting would be much faster, but walking to your destination

would keep you in better shape, don’t you think? In much the same way, doing

concentrated research the traditional way, away from the distractions of Internet

ads and tangent links, leads to more concentration, allowing a greater chance for

knowledge to be acquired. So how should this knowledge be applied in our studies?

I suggest that the topics one would want to master be studied the traditional way:

study literature and not a distracting webpage, put in the extra effort required to

fully experience the material instead of “cram sessions” on the computer. Leave the

Internet for the information that you do not mind forgetting, because there is a

greater chance that you will.

Seeking knowledge from the Internet certainly has its obstacles with regard

to distractions and retention, but there is another major drawback to the medium:

How do you determine what is worth reading, and what is valid? An often-

experienced example, one with frightening yet occasionally humorous results, is the

typical attempt to diagnose an illness via Internet search. Most have felt sickness or

pain in some way, and have turned to their computer or smartphone for guidance

on what they should do, leading to page after “gloom and doom” page of their

Burris 7

symptoms aligning with some of the worst diseases known to mankind. Even a web

search for a common headache will elicit one of the online medical databases to

inform you that you could have cancer. I suppose it could be a possibility, yet the

percentage chance that a headache indicates cancer does not align with the

percentage of Internet sources implying cancer. The Internet if full of useful

information; it really is quite remarkable when you think about the world having a

unified information source the way we do today, but for all the accurate

information, the inaccurate is far more plentiful. So how can we navigate the

dangerous terrain of the Internet landscape? The University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign University Library has a guideline that assists with finding the most

valid information. Essentially, in regards to determining whether a webpage is

factual, they have six criteria that can be used to judge the source. The more criteria

that the webpage complies with, the higher chance of validity. Questions such as:

How did you find the page?

What is the site’s domain?

What is the authority of the page?

Is the information accurate and objective?

Is the page current?

Does the page function well?

(“Evaluating Internet Sources,” 2012)

So the first question, how the page was found, is a great place to start. There are

multiple ways to search the Internet, yet most default to one of the major search

engines such as Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. They allow a quick portal to the most

Burris 8

relevant information to the query entered, yet due to the way they function with

advertisement revenue, the top results in a search might not be the most accurate,

instead relying on whichever site drives more clicks and traffic. The best way to find

quality information is knowing the history of the source. What reputation does this

source have? If a source has reputation for delivering quality information, they often

give the extra effort in order to maintain that reputation. These sites also tend to do

their own research before publishing articles and their works cite other reputable

sources. There are many times where one does research in a field they have no prior

knowledge, and that is where observing the websites domain name becomes

essential. The University of Illinois also breaks down each domain type to help filter

the type of information that most likely is contained within:

.org: An advocacy website, such as a not-for-profit organization

.com: A business or commercial site.

.net: A site from a network organization or an Internet service

provider.

.edu: A site affiliated with a higher education institution.

.gov: A federal government site.

.il.us: A state government site.

~: The tilde usually indicates a personal page

(“Evaluating Internet Sources,” 2012)

Virginia Montecino, of George Mason University, further categorizes websites into

groupings, such as: personal home pages, special interest sites, professional sites,

news and journalistic sites, and commercial sites, with professional and news and

Burris 9

journalistic sites as being the most reputable (Montecino, 1998). Many professional

sites, such as university and government pages, are seen as a reliable source

because of their credentials and that they are reviewed for accuracy. Other websites,

such as personal pages, special interest sites, and commercial sites (.com, .org, .net)

need to be approached cautiously as they often contain biased views, are

opinionated, and often have an agenda to the material presented. If a person wants

to know the best way to keep their lawn looking fresh and green year round, the

best source might not be a .com website of a lawn care business that sells a

particular grass seed. Their advice would typically involve leveraging their product

for profit, even if there could be a better option for the one doing the research. This

same website might be a fantastic source, as long as they deliver credible, quality

information to back up their claims. Additionally the overall professional look of the

website as well as how current the information is can be indicators of credibility. A

technology journal discussing the best email solutions for your business written

three years ago, although relevant at the time, might not display the most accurate

information today. These examples are hypothetical and fairly straight forward, but

what if a website is unbiased and is not so easy to judge when it comes to credibility

and validity? What if the webpage looks professional, is current, and is constantly

reviewed by the entire user base? A website that fits the above criteria is none other

than Wikipedia itself, which has increasingly become the most used source of

information on the web. The largest downside however, is also its strength: it can be

edited anytime by anyone. Wikipedia itself testifies that because of this, it should

not be used as a scholarly source, and must be approached with caution.

Burris 10

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is

increasingly used by people in the academic community, from

freshman students to professors…however, citation of Wikipedia in

research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia

is not considered a credible or authoritative source.

("Wikipedia:Academic Use,” 2014)

Wikipedia also points out two rules to follow when approaching the information on

their site.

Follow two simple rules:

Do your research properly and wisely. Remember that any

encyclopedia is a starting point for research, not an ending

point…it is great for getting a general understanding…but then

you do have to dive into the subject.

Use your judgment. Remember that all sources have to be

evaluated.

("Wikipedia:Academic Use,” 2014)

These are two simple rules that help, not only with Wikipedia usage, but general

Internet usage while researching information. A builder is only as good as his

materials, and a Wikipedia page is only as good as its sources of information. A great

use for Wikipedia is view it as a starting point. Use it to gain a general knowledge on

a subject, and then scroll to the bottom of the page to look over the references, and

you might find credible sources that can be cited in research papers, your own

articles, or can result in piece of mind that the information you have gained is

Burris 11

credible and valid. With Wikipedia or any source on the web, one must resist the

urge to take shortcuts and believe whatever they read, and take time to verify the

credibility of who or where the information comes from.

With all the misinformation that exists on the Internet, why are we not more

careful in what we choose to consume? I wrote earlier on how our brain tries to

make life easier on itself, through the example of schemata as well as allowing the

Internet and our devices to remember for us. Ease of use, the path of least

resistance, and desire for efficient time management all contribute to the occasional

oversight in how credible, or not so credible, our sources are. Wikipedia, which has

millions of entries, has completed most of the work for us. It is also an example of a

clean, pretty package: a very professional, advertisement free interface with

information on nearly anything you could imagine. Since it is used so often, it is

normally the first entry to a search engine query, which permits even less effort to

use it. I also believe we look at Wikipedia as a, “By the people, for the people,”

organism that represents our inner wants to trust each other; to believe that

something can be so beneficial and inherently good, that no one would want to

interfere and ruin it. For the most part, this has been correct in Wikipedia’s case,

aside from honest mistakes and a very small percentage that alter its contents for

malicious or humorous effect. Yet still, as humanistic of an approach as we would

like to take towards Wikipedia, and more importantly, the internet as a whole, the

fact remains that there is too much biased, misinformed, agenda driven information

intertwined within its pages to be taken lightly. Whether through blogs, articles, or

social media, we live in an era in which ignorance can spread at a rapid rate. Our

Burris 12

very country has seen the devastating effects of hate and racism spread due to the

power of social media, with the majority being misguided and based upon little fact.

At one time, we used torches and pitchforks; now all we need are status updates. A

study conducted in 2014 by the Pew Research Center showed that, of the adults

studied, seventy one percent had a Facebook account with twenty three percent

having a Twitter account, and these numbers had been consistently increasing year

over year (Duggan, 2014). For an increasing number of people, these sites do much

more than provide a connection to their family and friends; these media outlets also

supply their daily news and politics. Since Facebook and Twitter are typically meant

for short status updates and messages, the “source” of the news quickly summarizes

the story and provides a link to the full article, but in doing so, will typically use an

overdramatized summary or title in order to grab the readers attention. It can often

be seen as a positive when people are exposed to news they were otherwise

disconnected from, but now more than ever, the additional research needs to be

conducted in order to ensure that accurate information is spread and that

propaganda riddled with ignorance is not.

In our digital age, we are privileged with more information available to us

than we know what to do with. In contrast, we are burdened with more

misinformation than we have ever had to filter through before, and because of this

truth, we must ensure that we have the knowledge to navigate the oceans of

information before us. What are the writer’s credentials? Is this source known for

providing solid information? Does the information read as unbiased and fact

presenting? These are just some of the questions we should ask ourselves when

Burris 13

deciding what to believe and what to discard. For the areas which we desire to

acquire knowledge in, we must take the steps necessary to validate our sources for

their credibility, and in doing so, develop our sense of self efficacy and

independence. Too many take what they read for truth without challenging the

source, focusing only on ease and time efficiency. In doing so, true knowledge is

sacrificed for a quick answer; mastering a subject is forgone and replaced with just

enough information to get by in the moment, only to be quickly forgotten and

replaced by something else. In a society that focuses vividly on the destinations of

life, I say our purpose is for the journey; navigating through misinformation for the

truth that we all seek.

Burris 14

References

1. Duggan, Maeve, and Nicole Ellison. "Social Media Update 2014." Pew

Research Centers Internet American Life Project RSS. Pew Research Center,

09 Jan. 2015. Web. 03 May 2015.

<http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/>.

2. "Evaluating Internet Sources." Evaluating Internet Sources. University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 29 Aug. 2012. Web. 02 May 2015.

<http://www.library.illinois.edu/ugl/howdoi/webeval.html>.

3. Gregoire, Carolyn. "How Technology Is Warping Your Memory." The

Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 11 Dec. 2013. Web. 02 May 2015.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/technology-changes-

memory_n_4414778.html>.

4. Love, E. J. "On Research: How Did It Ever Get Done before the Internet?"

EJohnLoveBooks.com. WordPress, 23 July 2011. Web. 02 May 2015.

<http://ejohnlovebooks.com/2011/07/on-research-how-did-it-ever-get-

done-before-the-internet/>.

5. Montecino, Virginia. "Helpful Hints to Help You Evaluate the Credibility of

Web Resources." Helpful Hints to Help You Evaluate the Credibility of Web

Resources. George Mason University, 1998. Web. 02 May 2015.

<http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm>.

6. Morris, Charles G., and Albert A. Maisto. Understanding Psychology with

DSM-5 Update. Pg. 193,498. N.p.: Pearson, 2014. Print.

Burris 15

7. "Wikipedia:Academic Use." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 4 Sept. 2014.

Web. 03 May 2015.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use>.