http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:About
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Beginner%27s_Guide

Did you see today's article in the Guardian? This Seth Finkelstein guy seems fairly sane, by most modern standards anyway. And no mention of Wikitruth.info... Now there's someone I wouldn't mind being mistaken for! c • > • cunwapquc? 03:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Forum:Wikitruth

http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikitruth:Introduction
http://wikitruth.info

Seth please clarify what a "power center" might be in regard to the criticism of techo-hype. Alan

Alan: I mean an organization or institution that provides the criticism with the necessary backing to be heard. For example, how many people, of what prominence, are going to read Nick Carr's article, compared to this blog post?

Seth, I see your point but I don't think Nick's passage here is that bad. People quick to yell "luddite!" are probably beyond reasoning with anyway. Someday they'll grow up and learn to listen to people outside their little bubble. Working towards educating people in that regard is a better route than trying to appease them with softer, more tech-positive criticism (and in so doing water down one's writing so much as to be ineffective).

Furthermore, and getting back to Nick's original point, those readers you're worried about probably won't bother to read his article anyway.

My sense is that Carr wanted to substitute in "blogs" or "twitter" for "Google" in the title but feared the old arguments that would dredge up.

It's hard to really pin down a Google culture. You use it or you don't; big deal. Yes, it's some ways it's profound as the culture of timepieces, but it's not a *subculture*-- the way that Facebook or the blogosphere or the twittersphere is.

There are people who flit from piece to piece and end up saying something profoundly stupid; and others who weave together what they learn and say something intelligent. It would be nice to have somebody investigate that.

The second part of the title is a stretch as well. Nowhere in the article does Carr use the word "stupid" or even "dumb." His thesis is that "we" are no longer deep reading, and Maryann Wolf says that deep reading equals deep thinking, therefore we are not deep thinking, which we are presume is equivalent to intelligence.

But wait-- is it *possible* that some people have stopped deep reading, because the blog evangelists tell us that journalists are lazy and/or corrupted? Or they may be right, that conventional journalism is hackneyed, overwrought, and should be reduced to a derivative paragraph.

Well, to borrow a book title, it doesn't matter. Carr has mounted the tech-hip-curmudgeon horse, and he's going to ride it into the sunset.

I'd have to agree that it would be very nice to see more criticism of the hype and hucksters within tech--and boy! is there a whole lot of it! I'm always amazed how, if one mentions the importance of human interaction over, say, monitoring a twitter stream, that fingers are pointed. Then again, one person's ambitious go-getter is another person's workaholic. Even in those dialogues there is little balance or middle ground.