Yes, thanks for cutting through my mockery to the real problem. Plenty of people might say "If you can't Google it, it doesn't exist" without meaning it literally, or implying that it is a good thing. Plenty of librarians might say such a thing ironically or to argue for better findability of non-digital resources on the web.

Now, does this qualify as research? ;)
Thanks for looking into it further.

Congrats on getting your Wikipedia issue sorted out. I know that was a big thorn in your shoe...

We STILL have not clarified this between ourselves:

You call it "work for free" or "free labor". That assumes money is the only currency, no? These people who "toil" do it for a reason... just because money's not the main reason, doesn't mean they're getting nothing out of it. Discuss?

Citing: Malinowski's "Kula" etc.

PS. I don't have a problem with "If it isn't on Google, it doesn't exist". At least not in that context.

At least, no more than I have a problem with somebody saying "If it doesn't make it past my filters, it doesn't exist". While that might be empirically untrue, all sentinent and semi-sentinent creatures have filters of one sort or another. Google acts as just one big filter for some people.

After reading your weblog post, I was interested in finding out more about this critical thinking thing. So I searched for it on Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=critical+thinking

The number one result? Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

So it goes.

Steve: Yes. My core argument is that Gorman is being very superficial.

Carlos: You're welcome.

Hugh: That's an unfalsifiable rhetorical stance. If anyone does anything, by definition they can be said to be getting something out of it. Yet exploitation has a meaning. Obviously the cultists who sell flowers at airports get "something" out of it (e.g. cult approval). Yet I'd say they're working for free.

Rogers: Oh, the irony :-)

Maybe he's thinking of AltaVista's claim (in 1999): "If you can't find it, it probably doesn't exist."

http://web.archive.org/web/19991127201244/http://doc.altavista.com/help/search/whats_new.shtml

Anyone who does research in the humanities knows how very little useful academic research CAN be found through google.

Sour grapes here.

Wikipedia deletes *lots* of stuff. People move articles around (or delete and then re-submit an article), thus deleting the history of submission/edits.

Things that are in Google get deleted as well. Not notable. Too trivial. Whatever trumped up reason they wish to give. Articles get deleted to be made into redirects to articles of different subjects. Cross-links get removed.