Weakness or strength?

[D McCartney]

Posted by Steve in aonther thread:
Doesn't this whole thing just point out the internet's major weakness? It is so easy to anonymously attack someone using select bits of information, half-truths, or even outright lies and never have to produce even a modicum of proof--just lurk behind the First Amendment.
Do Not start that thread again.

But I don't agree that it is a weakness of the internet. Anyone can post their opinions online, yes, and others can reply. When it is all done, you can come to a conclusion, usually pretty accurate, based on your evaluation of the total.

[tZer]

I vote Strength.

Just because someone says something does not mean you have to believe it or agree with it. If they are using the anonymity of the Internet as a way to hide or dodge personal responsibility, it will eventually show in what they say.

For those of us who hold ourselves to a higher level of integrity, I believe we redouble our efforts to fact-check and present our side of an argument with that much more solid, substantial content in an effort to make it obvious when the other is full of shite.

[christ andronis]

Originally Posted by D McCartney

Posted by Steve in aonther thread:
Doesn't this whole thing just point out the internet's major weakness? It is so easy to anonymously attack someone using select bits of information, half-truths, or even outright lies and never have to produce even a modicum of proof--just lurk behind the First Amendment.
Do Not start that thread again.

But I don't agree that it is a weakness of the internet. Anyone can post their opinions online, yes, and others can reply. When it is all done, you can come to a conclusion, usually pretty accurate, based on your evaluation of the total.

Just because it's in a book or on tv does it make it any more accurate?

[D McCartney]

Most book authors do considerabel reasearch before publishing, and then it is often rechecked by the publisher. The internet is often knee jerk. The value I see of the internet is that there are many who have already done the research and have experience, and they can bring those to the debate. Over time, I believe the internet is as accurate as the researched book or other form of media.

[Ed Fuqua]

The nice thing about TB is that (especially around NYC and some other areas) is that many of us have physically met others of us (or have acquaintances in common). Otherwise it's hard to really tell if somebody just got off the road with Freddie or just got out of diapers.

I mean the only real way anybody actually knows if I'm Ed Fuqua is because a number of folks here have actually met me (and I've met them) and can confirm both my ID and what I actually sound like.

[Sam Sherry]

The world is full of people who talk themselves up. I've done more than my share, for sure, and not just around here. If you look at my site you think I am Someone Special. In fact, I'm just a struggling amateur.

Point being, the only thing we have when dealing with strangers is reputation, other credibility factors and the evidence of what we sense at the moment. The internet removes the third one.

So in our efforts to get people to listen to what we have to say online there is a natural tendency to inflate our credibility by inflating our credentials. Check that: Many folks lie in order to be more believable than they really are!

Add to that the rampant tendency on this and most internet fora to hide behind a fake name and it is VERY hard to sort the wheat from the chaff in the short-term.

Finally, D McC, I don't necessarily equate the 'majority conclusion' with "the truth." The US was formed around the notion of protecting minorities from 'the tyranny of the majority.' It was a radical idea 230 years ago and it still is today.

Thanks for a thoughtful question, bro. I have little doubt that I'll be in the minority here.

[Marc Piane]

Originally Posted by Sam Sherry

So in our efforts to get people to listen to what we have to say online there is a natural tendency to inflate our credibility by inflating our credentials. Check that: Many folks lie in order to be more believable than they really are!

Add to that the rampant tendency on this and most internet fora to hide behind a fake name and it is VERY hard to sort the wheat from the chaff in the short-term.

Sam is right on here. As I look at it there are two steps to becoming a sought after pro. The first is not your playing. We've all known plenty of cats that are great players but horrible marketers and end up staying home on a Friday night wondering why the phone doesn't ring. There is nothing wrong with shameless self-promotion. Once you get your name around THEN you have to prove to the world that you are what you say you are though.

The internet takes most of step 2 out of the equation. You can post like crazy without anyone knowing anything about you. I think this is especially a disservice to younger TB readers. If you sound like you know what you are talking about then maybe you do... first rule of sales. That is where being as un-anonymous as possible comes in. I have a much greater respect for the posts that are coming from guys that are known. Their profiles are filled in, they might have a link to a website or post gig-spams, and I know their real name. Sure, I post as Fingers but there is a link to my website in my signature and others do the same.

Bottom line, I take everything a read here with a grain of salt. I read profiles carefully and only take stuff seriously from guys that I am sure know what they are talking about.

[damonsmith]

What I think is great about the whole thing is that players, like myself and many others here, often do very thorough, scholarly research in the interest of playing the bass, but we often have more information than professional journalists and other writers online and in print have.
Many other sites have comment sections after reviews and articles and I think it makes writers do more research knowing they will be called on any misinformation.

It is a little like intonation on the bass, sure there is a big chance of playing out of tune, but we also have the possibility of being 100% exact, which the fixed instruments like guitar, piano etc. don't.

[Steve Killingsworth]

My original statement on the other thread was aimed more at character assassination or disinformation rather than self-promotion.

TZ said "For those of us who hold ourselves to a higher level of integrity, I believe we redouble our efforts to fact-check and present our side of an argument with that much more solid, substantial content. . . " The problem is that I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of the population won't do that. They take what they hear, see, or read at face value.

Case in point--9-11 conspiracy theories. Virtually all the "evidence" has been debunked by bonafide experts and yet a 2006 poll reported that 36% of the American public believes our own government was involved. Why?

I respectfully disagree with the idea that the Internet is as accurate as a researched book. Legitimate books are footnoted and cite sources. They are peer reviewed, debated, and picked apart. Their authors are subject to extensive scrutiny. Not so on the net--anyone with software, time, and webspace can create a site on any subject.

I would agree that there is some good stuff available on line, but there is just too much chaff mixed in with the wheat.

[christ andronis]

Originally Posted by Steve Killingsworth

My original statement on the other thread was aimed more at character assassination or disinformation rather than self-promotion.

TZ said "For those of us who hold ourselves to a higher level of integrity, I believe we redouble our efforts to fact-check and present our side of an argument with that much more solid, substantial content. . . " The problem is that I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of the population won't do that. They take what they hear, see, or read at face value.

Case in point--9-11 conspiracy theories. Virtually all the "evidence" has been debunked by bonafide experts and yet a 2006 poll reported that 36% of the American public believes our own government was involved. Why?

I respectfully disagree with the idea that the Internet is as accurate as a researched book. Legitimate books are footnoted and cite sources. They are peer reviewed, debated, and picked apart. Their authors are subject to extensive scrutiny. Not so on the net--anyone with software, time, and webspace can create a site on any subject.

I would agree that there is some good stuff available on line, but there is just too much chaff mixed in with the wheat.

I hear what you're saying but I would still argue with you that just because it's in a print version doesn't make it any more valid. There are volumes of research that "prove" the earth is only 50,000 years old (or some such figure), validated by "scientists" and foisted on bunches of people who believe it. And there are lots more examples. Now, I don't want to get off on a tangent, but how is "stuff" (I'm trying to be kind) like that an indicator that books are any more valid than the internet? Sure, there's alot of "stuff" on the internet but the beauty of it to me is that there's information available to everyone...on any topic. And you don't have to go to a library and it's not the exclusive domain of a select few.......yet! Perhaps it would be better to say it's wise to do your research no matter what the source and verify it. Just my .02.

[reedo35]

Originally Posted by Sam Sherry

So in our efforts to get people to listen to what we have to say online there is a natural tendency to inflate our credibility by inflating our credentials. Check that: Many folks lie in order to be more believable than they really are!

Add to that the rampant tendency on this and most internet fora to hide behind a fake name and it is VERY hard to sort the wheat from the chaff in the short-term.

Too True, But I also believe that there are enough knowledgeable people on this forum to smell BS a mile away. Posers and trolls can only hide their identities, not their experience.

[D McCartney]

Ed,
When I hear this http://www.activebass.com/mp3/UntilT...ComesAlong.mp3

I am willing to listen to what you say about the bass and I don’t need to meet you to know it is real. Your playing speaks for itself.

Sam, your well reasoned post sort of belies your own position. You make a very good argument and I believe folks can draw valid conclusions using it. I agree majority does not equal right, that’s why there is cloture. I’m just saying that over time reality steps in, no matter what the form of communication. I believe lies almost always are eventually exposed.
There are truth and lies on the internet, just as there are both all media, print or broadcast, even the arts.
In the short term, the internet is hazardous for making snap judgments, but over time I believe, cream rises as the saying goes.

Steve, just from reading the entire other thread, (whew, not easy to do) I would have no problem with being a customer of the subject. The demeanor and reference information of OP and the rest, or lack of it, is enlightening, as is usually the case in situations like that.
Let’s try that Scripps-Howard poll again after the Iraq war is over and see what you get.
The operative word being “legitimate” books. Could apply to “legitimate” online posts.

I’d love to go on but I haven’t practiced yet. Priorities ya know?
D

[Steve Killingsworth]

Isn't it pleasant to have a conversation without it degenerating into a name-calling shouting match?

Originally Posted by christ andronis

I hear what you're saying but I would still argue with you that just because it's in a print version doesn't make it any more valid. There are volumes of research that "prove" the earth is only 50,000 years old (or some such figure), validated by "scientists" and foisted on bunches of people who believe it. And there are lots more examples..

I do agree that there are many books in print that are a waste of perfectly good paper. But the idea is that any (to use the word again) "legitimate" book will have references to support its conclusions. The conclusions can be debated, the sources can be checked, the research criticized. Your example of creationism/intelligent design would be an example of what I am talking about. Sure, you can find a publisher for almost anything but does it hold up under criticism?

I wonder what percentage of internet sites reference their information? I would suggest it is very low.

Am I saying that all internet-based information is invalid? By no means, but I do think that much of it is very shallow. I am by trade a history teacher (high school and adjunct for the University Tennessee Martin). I see so many students who never get beyond Wikipedia or the first 3 or 4 hits on Google. Why? Because Google is quick and easy and real research is time-consuming and hard. Consequently, they become prime candidates to buy into disinformation.

Originally Posted by christ andronis

Perhaps it would be better to say it's wise to do your research no matter what the source and verify it. Just my .02.

Well said.

[Menacewarf]

Originally Posted by D McCartney

Posted by Steve in aonther thread:
Doesn't this whole thing just point out the internet's major weakness? It is so easy to anonymously attack someone using select bits of information, half-truths, or even outright lies and never have to produce even a modicum of proof--just lurk behind the First Amendment.

What a M-F'n thoughtful community!
I'm constantly in awe.

I can't believe the internet (or TB) is a weakness. There are not enough years in eternity to account for all the poor judgments, misinformation, and downright falsehoods in life. All of this will exist as long as people do.
The beauty of having an incredible array of information at our fingertips is the chance to rake through all of that poison mud. If odds are 1 in 100, I would rather have 10,000 chances in order to hear 100 worth listening to instead of stopping at one or two. (Are the odds even this good in life?)

When someone is worth it, (like some who have posted above among others), and they communicate exceptionally time and time again, that thing forms (reputation?) which becomes clear and hard and true and literally one of the realest things in life (like friendship).
It (many members of this community) inspires me on a daily basis.

I can reach that level;
It is possible;
Some people do achieve it…
There are a few in this world who stand and say, “No Bullshit…EVER!”

Freedom and knowledge are intrinsically good things because they perpetuate more good.

Although I don’t expect to be truly heard in this community (lack of cache) I have to be grateful to at least have the opportunity to do just this, occasionally say something. Isn't that just the way it's supposed to work?

[mcnaire2004]

You all are ugly, and I am presenting 0 facts to back me up. No one will ever believe me..... or will they.

[D McCartney]

Originally Posted by mcnaire2004

You all are ugly, and I am presenting 0 facts to back me up. No one will ever believe me..... or will they.

I just look in the mirror and can see that you are a sage of great wisdom.