Research in the Information Age
Research has never been easier. When I have a question, I open Firefox and Google it. When I come upon a word that I don't quite understand, I select it, right click, and click "Search for Selection," and Google tells me what I need to know. When I find a refrence to something that I don't catch immediately, I do the same. I don't understand why the libraries keep trying to push us to use outdated, slow, unsearchable book sources for information, except perhaps that they typically have a smaller number of errors than the typical online source. Of course, with proper validation (which has nothing to do with the TLD, by the way), online sites are both more convenient and equally accurate.
posted by Eric @ 4:27 PM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Really!?!?!?!
OK, my first problem with this post is that Yahoo! is so much better than Google BUT I digress...
My major issue with this is that books are MUCH better sources for getting detailed, in-depth info on topics than the Interent, and are much easier to understand. When I wanted to learn about D-Day, I bought a book on it. Same thing for the CIA in Afghanistan, Stalingrad, Wake Island, the subconscious, and every other nonfiction topic I've wanted to delve into a little deeper. Online, most of the time you get straight facts. That's all great, but in the end, most information is about connections to other information. I don't mean a link on Wikipedia that takes you to a new article - I mean explanations of how stuff relates and why. Reading the stuff about terror networks in Lebanon in 'See No Evil' is a great example of this: I doubt I could find any of that on the Interent very easily.
Also, books are just more fun to read. The only long documents that I ever access on the internet are government CRS reports and legislation.
P.S. - I'm not saying the Internet is bad - I use it for reports and stuff too - I'm just saying it is incomplete when you want to get more information on a topic. And it will never be able to supply any of the information that you can find in, say, 'See No Evil' or 'Ghost Wars.' OSINT is good, but it's not that good. HUMINT all the way!
NAHA!!
No way man, google is sooo much better.
1. It is faster
2. Accurate resources require common sense
3. E-books
E-books are useless. My Dad says that he heard talk of 'electronic paper' and all that stuff decades ago: and where is it now. Books are just a lot simpler. I don't think I've read anything over 10 pages on a computer: if it's that long, I print it. I could have downloaded the 9/11 Commission Report as a PDF (about 700 pages), but instead I chose to buy it as a book because it was helpful that way.
You both make valid points. Here's my stance - it depends on your motivation for doing the research. If its just a "get it done really quick, I just want the information and an A+", definitely the internet. The internet is very easily navigable, and no matter which search engine you prefer, you can almost always find the information you need. However, books can be a lot better if you're truly interested in the information. The problem with the internet is that it's hard to find a quality site that's WELL WRITTEN. Books are written by people who's job it is to write. Websites are written by every joe blow out there, (including myself) and professional web designers do not write. They design. People who put the content up there aren't doing so as an excercise in writing - if they wanted to do that, they'd be an author instead of a website creator. It's two completely different things. If you're doing it for pleasure and want in depth info, you get a book. If you're doing it purely to understand something either because you have to or because you want to, you go to wikipedia.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home