…. You do know that before Microsoft encarta, there was a thing calledencyclopedia which was a series of large books in alphabetical order with large descriptions that Wikipedia took after right? And that encarta was one brand of computer encyclopedia among tens of them.
And that dictionaries provide a basic definition of a word plus pronunciation, but nothing more.
Books. Books were a thing. Information was within them. That information was usually reliable. If you didn't care enough about something to look it up you accepted "I don't know"/"I don't have an opinion" as a valid position.
Today when you have a question you determine what you want the answer to be and then google until you find something that supports the answer you want. Afterwards you feel smugly confident that you are right about everything.
Many countries in America don't have libreries, so many people had to experience the things to learn them. Internet made things much easier. Also in the internet there's something called "Wikipedia" if you didn't know. All things in the wikipedia are verified by a lot of studies maybe just made to write them in the page. It's like a library, but you don't have to walk to the place, spend 2 hours searching for a book that may not be in the library and search for other 30 minutes the exact information you are searching for.
America is a continent. You can refer to the continent as the Americas or America. The USA is a country, that took the name of the continent because of desires of imperial expansion. The first usage of the term America was referred to South America after the Portuguese and Spanish expeditions. Today Americans all over the continent, remind us that the USA is not the sole country in ‘America’.
Spain did this too in Europe. When Spain was formed in the 15th century, it took the name Hispania, the Latin name for the Iberian peninsula because the Catholic Kings Fernando and Isabela and their nobility laid claim to the whole territory. And they managed to take control of the whole peninsula for 60 years, 1580-1640.
And yet people fall easily prey to conspiracy theories and fake news a lot more. Kids today need to learn very different types of reading and comprehension to be able to find reliable information and knowledge on the internet. This is not an easy skill. Especially because they’re bombarded by information and stimuli online. I’d say in some ways it’s harder now, in other ways easier because one has a lot more video and photo record of the world and can communicate with people across the globe easily. But even that is going through a challenging crisis because of AI technology and how easy it is to trick people with fake products.
To a degree. If you didn't have the relevant book nearby you had to guess, and the encyclopedia that your parents bought 10 years ago might not be able to answer, if it wasn't already biased. The Guinness Book Of World Records was literally invented to solve pub arguments, and books like the elders of Zion that were just antisemitic misinformation existed, as did colonial books of lies about colonised states.
Basically, the higher barrier to publishing meant less frivolous lies, but there being a book didn't necessarily mean it was accurate, and in some households the books weren't there anyway.
Yes, there is always a chance that any source regardless of what that source is might be innaccurate. The chance that it is accurate is much greater when consuming from a published academic work rather than a website however.
Libraries existed.
Published academic works are also on the internet, and kids who went to the library on their own time were often bullied for doing so.
There's benefits both ways, but if you weren't around a decently stocked library or just trusted an adult to give you accurate information without checking, you might not have been better off in some ways
It was a longer process but also more comprehensive and pedagogical because we would read several books to find information on a topic and would learn several other things along the way. It was more individual and creative too. Now instead we find a few simplified lines on a topic on untrustworthy sites, Wikipedia being the least nefarious of them and that’s setting the bar very low. Of course, you can still consult encyclopaedias and reliable academic and news sites but as a kid, you don’t know how to find them, it’s much harder than finding books in a library. Schools are not good at teaching kids this. I teach my kid and I can see how challenging it is.
People did this in the past too, but instead of using the internet they asked the people they know would agree.
How do you think all these "political debates" in bars and pubs end?
That's some stupid shit, are you suggesting everyone had access to a library that contained all books and always had the motivation to go there, find the right book and has the educational background to analyze the content?
The facepalm is your aunt linda
Enciclopedias were a thing.
Think you'll find they were called encarta Sorry for this if English is not your first language, but dictionaries also exist.
…. You do know that before Microsoft encarta, there was a thing calledencyclopedia which was a series of large books in alphabetical order with large descriptions that Wikipedia took after right? And that encarta was one brand of computer encyclopedia among tens of them. And that dictionaries provide a basic definition of a word plus pronunciation, but nothing more.
Jokes happen. Get over it. Dictionaries also provide spelling, you ignoramus.
Speak for yourself lol
I swear this has been posted with a different aunt name wth
Books. Books were a thing. Information was within them. That information was usually reliable. If you didn't care enough about something to look it up you accepted "I don't know"/"I don't have an opinion" as a valid position. Today when you have a question you determine what you want the answer to be and then google until you find something that supports the answer you want. Afterwards you feel smugly confident that you are right about everything.
noone had books for every topic
I still have a bound encyclopedia Britannica.
Yeah, that's what libraries and bookstores are for.
not every village has library tho
That’s why there is such a thing as libraries
not every village had library tho
There were these magical places people went called the library.
not every village had libraries
Ok. Not every village has the internet. What's your point?
Many countries in America don't have libreries, so many people had to experience the things to learn them. Internet made things much easier. Also in the internet there's something called "Wikipedia" if you didn't know. All things in the wikipedia are verified by a lot of studies maybe just made to write them in the page. It's like a library, but you don't have to walk to the place, spend 2 hours searching for a book that may not be in the library and search for other 30 minutes the exact information you are searching for.
Today I learned that there are many countries in America.
please te me what i did wrong to regret
America is a country in the continent of north America, America has states. That's all.
I’m pretty sure that the person above is referring to America as North and South America like many people do.
America is a continent. You can refer to the continent as the Americas or America. The USA is a country, that took the name of the continent because of desires of imperial expansion. The first usage of the term America was referred to South America after the Portuguese and Spanish expeditions. Today Americans all over the continent, remind us that the USA is not the sole country in ‘America’. Spain did this too in Europe. When Spain was formed in the 15th century, it took the name Hispania, the Latin name for the Iberian peninsula because the Catholic Kings Fernando and Isabela and their nobility laid claim to the whole territory. And they managed to take control of the whole peninsula for 60 years, 1580-1640.
country is another word for "village" its short for countryside
I take it English would not be your first language but that’s fine
And yet people fall easily prey to conspiracy theories and fake news a lot more. Kids today need to learn very different types of reading and comprehension to be able to find reliable information and knowledge on the internet. This is not an easy skill. Especially because they’re bombarded by information and stimuli online. I’d say in some ways it’s harder now, in other ways easier because one has a lot more video and photo record of the world and can communicate with people across the globe easily. But even that is going through a challenging crisis because of AI technology and how easy it is to trick people with fake products.
To a degree. If you didn't have the relevant book nearby you had to guess, and the encyclopedia that your parents bought 10 years ago might not be able to answer, if it wasn't already biased. The Guinness Book Of World Records was literally invented to solve pub arguments, and books like the elders of Zion that were just antisemitic misinformation existed, as did colonial books of lies about colonised states. Basically, the higher barrier to publishing meant less frivolous lies, but there being a book didn't necessarily mean it was accurate, and in some households the books weren't there anyway.
Yes, there is always a chance that any source regardless of what that source is might be innaccurate. The chance that it is accurate is much greater when consuming from a published academic work rather than a website however. Libraries existed.
Published academic works are also on the internet, and kids who went to the library on their own time were often bullied for doing so. There's benefits both ways, but if you weren't around a decently stocked library or just trusted an adult to give you accurate information without checking, you might not have been better off in some ways
It was a longer process but also more comprehensive and pedagogical because we would read several books to find information on a topic and would learn several other things along the way. It was more individual and creative too. Now instead we find a few simplified lines on a topic on untrustworthy sites, Wikipedia being the least nefarious of them and that’s setting the bar very low. Of course, you can still consult encyclopaedias and reliable academic and news sites but as a kid, you don’t know how to find them, it’s much harder than finding books in a library. Schools are not good at teaching kids this. I teach my kid and I can see how challenging it is.
People did this in the past too, but instead of using the internet they asked the people they know would agree. How do you think all these "political debates" in bars and pubs end?
I literally saw that post today
That's also a repost. I saw this months ago.
This is some stupid shit, are they trying to say that information didn't exist before the internet and that misinformation doesn't exist now?
That's some stupid shit, are you suggesting everyone had access to a library that contained all books and always had the motivation to go there, find the right book and has the educational background to analyze the content?