| Thanks. I feel like I rambled on far too long, but I'm very glad if it's helpful to anyone. > a bit black on white on the difference between low/high value content Agreed. I was simplifying - it was long enough as is! And it is already so speculative (it's almost embarrassing - ironically low-value) that I would hesitate to try to add nuance. > Why do you think it is that 'low' value content is so prevalent - and we fail to refer to refer to actually high value content? My personal hypotheses: 1) Few people care enough about the world to even consider making an effort to be better informed 2) Of those who care, few even consider that low-value content is so unreliable and high-value content exists (as I said in #2 in my original post) 3) Of those who care and know what they are missing, few want to make an effort to find and read the high-value content. People are lazy (me too!) 4) The low-value content establishes the norms: People read it and believe it, and therefore anything that contradicts it - especially from a whole different perspective - seems wrong, ridiculous, and at best challenges their worldview - not something many people will accept. If everyone thinks the Sun orbits the Earth, the person telling the truth is ridiculed. > Do you think a service like a distilled wikipedia would be value Absolutely, but it takes time and skilled labor. I've often thought about how to get the high-value content into the public conversation. But there are good online resources: Try Encyclopedia Britannica, for example. It's what you describe, though necessarily smaller than Wikipedia. |