[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[markhsmit]

On Oct 17, 2009, at 10:24:42 PM, "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
[WillBlake]
However, selective specific references in Wiki which is explaining the meaning
of anti-intellectualism, as examples, has no place in an encyclopedia that is
now being considered a quotable reference.

[Arlo]
Can you give me an example?

Hi Arlo,
In the encyclopedia's description of anti-intellectualism, which I thought referred  to
dictators who remove intellects from the country because they are 
threatening.  This would be like China after the second world war, and
all that anti-intellectualism.

However this article takes it much further and is full of opinions, conjectures, and falsities.
The more I read it objectively, the worse it gets.
For example:

"In the US 2000 Presidential Election, the media (particularly late night comics)
 portrayed Candidate Al Gore as a boring "brainiac" who spoke in a monotonous
 voice and jabbered on about numbers and figures that no one could understand.
 His supposed "claim to have invented the Internet"[9] was widely ridiculed. 
It was the classic stereotype of a pompous, out-of-touch intellectual, and this 
perception arguably hurt Gore in the election. In the years since, debate between 
the left and right in America has often centered on the relation of the intellectual class 
to the public as a whole.
Conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh 
commonly argue that conservative politicians, particularly Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush,
 and Sarah Palin have been attacked by media as being "incompetent" - this can 
be understood as an accusation of intellectual snobbery by the media. O'Reilly in 
particular is well known for having a hostile attitude towards what he calls the 
"Ivy League Elite" despite being a graduate of Harvard himself. Both O'Reilly 
and Limbaugh, as well as other conservative hosts such as Tucker Carlson 
and Joe Scarborough, are frequently accused of having anti-intellectual atmospheres 
on their shows, evidenced by their frequent interruption of guests who try to put 
forward complex arguments. Scarborough once commented that, "If my guest is 
allowed to speak uninterrupted for more than 15 seconds, then I'm not doing my job."

[wb2 again]
If this article is supposed to give students an accurate description of what anti-intellectualism
is, don't you think that this is a bit much?  Or are we presently suffering from a scourge of
anti-intellectualism?  Who says that Gore lost the election because of his
intellectualism.  Who says that the media has intellectual snobbery?  Who has
accused O'rielly as having an anti-intellectual atmospheres?  These are not facts.

Now I know you know this, but lately, I have seen high school kids referencing
Wikipedia as though it were a real encyclopedia!  I remember when Wikipedia
started.  I thought, "that's an interesting idea, an encyclopedia that anybody can
add to."  Somewhere along the line (very quickly) is became a source of truth.
Maybe I am old fashioned, but Wikipedia is no Encyclopedia.  It's hard to know
if what is read is established truth, or just somebody's opinion.  Anybody can edit.
Certain people like Jimmy Wales have more power than others.

It is easy to google Wikipedia to see how much false stuff is actually put on
it (if you trust Google).  Interestingly, Google is also open to manipulation.
At my last job, to increase sales, we were able increase the hit ratings of that 
company through several tricks once we understood the Google search algorithm, 
which has been published, although it changes all the time.  Once you know
how Google works, it is possible to place your name as the first hit.
Jimmy Wales himself has said that any search engine is political.  I
see the application to politics getting worse and worse.  If you control the
media, you control the country.

Anyway, beware of the internet when looking for truth (whatever that is).

Willblake2